YaHooka Forums  

Go Back   YaHooka Forums > The Chronic Colloquials > Politics And Current Affairs
Home Register FAQ Social Groups Links Mark Forums Read

Politics And Current Affairs Discussion on politics, current affairs and law. Do something today to make a difference.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 02:36 PM   #1 (permalink)
Cold School
 
cantSEEme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,051
Thanks: 152
Thanked 127 Times in 457 Posts
Prop. 8 upheld by California court

Quote:
From NBC's Harry Enten
The other news this afternoon, "The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law," the L.A. Times writes.

Gay rights activists have already signaled they might bring their own ballot initiative next year to overturn Prop 8. It passed with 52% last November, and recent polls suggest that a re-vote could be just as close.

Interestingly, the sole dissenter in the 6-1 decision was Carlos Moreno, who had been identified as being on Obama's Supreme Court short list.
Prop 8 upheld by Calif. court - First Read - msnbc.com



Calf. court says its was "no big deal".

Quote:
The overarching conclusion of the California Supreme Court today is that Proposition 8 was no big deal.

After all, same-sex couples still have all the rights included in the "marriage bag" and so the actual effect of reserving the term marriage to heterosexual couples is not significant enough to warrant a more extensive constitutional approval process.

The main focus of the majority's decision was on the distinction between a constitutional amendment and a constitutional revision.

Amendments are small changes requiring only a majority vote and revisions are larger changes, changes to the basic governmental plan or framework, that require a debate and approval process in the California State House as well as amongst the electorate.

As the Court writes: "Proposition 8 does not by any means "repeal" or "strip" gay individuals or same-sex couples of the very significant substantive protections afforded by the state equal protection clause either with regard to the fundamental rights of privacy and due process or in any other area, again with the sole exception of access to the designation of "marriage" to describe their relationship."

Because the effect of Proposition 8 is so "minor" we don't need to classify it as a revision and it can stand, as is, after a simple majority vote.

But the California Court offers no real analysis for its conclusion that simple nomenclature is really a minor matter. This, despite the fact that the offhanded treatment of the term marriage forms the basis of their decision to uphold Proposition 8.

Justice Moreno, in his dissent, comes to the opposite conclusion. Enforcing equal protection requires protection for all aspects of the law, including nomenclature. He even quotes the Court's previous conclusions in Re Marriage Cases:

"Denying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly be described as a "narrow" or "limited" exception to the requirement of equal protection; the passionate public debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, even in a state that offers largely equivalent substantive rights through the alternative of domestic partnership, belies such a description. "[T]he constitutional right to marry . . . has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution . . . ." (Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th at p. 781.)

Justice Moreno concludes that upholding Proposition 8 - a ballot measure that concretely denies equal protection and creates a legal distinction between two groups for no other reason than a fear and hatred of a minority by the majority - will "emasculat[e] the equal protection clause of the California Constitution as a provision of independent force and effect. "

If one agrees that a legal distinction between two similarly situated groups is nothing to scoff at, it is quite possible that Proposition 8 was a revision.

Justice Moreno explains that revisions to the Constitution may be structural, but are not limited to structural changes and may also include amendments that, "substantially alter the substance and integrity of the state Constitution as a document of independent force and effect."

Justice Moreno's point - and it is an important one is that if you refuse to dismiss the pain and suffering caused by Proposition 8 and address the legal discrimination it enshrines in the Constitution as being important and dangerous, you cannot consider Proposition 8 a simple amendment.

The majority never addresses this point. It calls the ballot measure a minor change that carves out a discreet exception to the equal protection clause and moves on to a detailed description of case law that ceases to be relevant when the court using that case law refuses to engage with the human outrage and controversy surrounding the subject of their decision.

Failing to uphold equal protection rights for same-sex couples is one thing, but doing so without engaging in the real debate over the importance of marriage, rather than civil unions, is a disservice to California's people and to the body of jurisprudence that forms the basis of many legal rights and responsibilities enforced in the State.
Emma Ruby-Sachs: California Supreme Court Thinks Prop 8 Was No Big Deal




remember when california was a progressive state? lol. wtf cali?
__________________
cantSEEme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 02:40 PM   #2 (permalink)
Radical Dreamer
 
verklingen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: texas
Posts: 8,031
Thanks: 795
Thanked 1,470 Times in 940 Posts
legislating discrimination is a sickening affair
__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”
rip matt
verklingen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to verklingen For This Useful Post:
Old 05-26-2009, 03:56 PM   #3 (permalink)
JcP
Arigatogozaimashita
 
JcP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: hopefully with a hot 22 year old
Posts: 4,471
Thanks: 142
Thanked 765 Times in 471 Posts
Honestly, I just have to laugh at stuff like this now. In twenty years, we are going to look back at the people involved in decisions like this just as my generation looks back on the people who stood in the way of the civil rights movement.

Shame on them, but frankly shame on the entire anti-gay movement in this country that makes courts get involved in the first place.

The human race needs to grow the f*ck up.
__________________

Just look out around us, people fightin their wars...
They think they'll be happy when they've settled their scores...
Let's lay down our weapons
and hold us apart
be still for just a minute
try to open our hearts
MORE LOVE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rev View Post
It's not what you see, it's that you're looking.
JcP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JcP For This Useful Post:
Being (05-26-2009), The Rev (05-26-2009)
Old 05-26-2009, 05:07 PM   #4 (permalink)
I am different
 
Being's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 3,319
Thanks: 882
Thanked 369 Times in 238 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP View Post
Honestly, I just have to laugh at stuff like this now. In twenty years, we are going to look back at the people involved in decisions like this just as my generation looks back on the people who stood in the way of the civil rights movement.

Shame on them, but frankly shame on the entire anti-gay movement in this country that makes courts get involved in the first place.

The human race needs to grow the f*ck up.

exactly how i feel


"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." -Abraham Lincoln
i've been posting that on twitter
__________________
R.I.P. Gov

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rev View Post
It's not a bad thing. We all chubbed a little on that one. The Reps really needed to be called out on their obstructionist ways. It's like they're stuck in Gingrich mode, and can't get out. They really need to reinvent themselves, bring in some new people, and really REALLY become the party of self-reliance and small government they'd like us to believe they are. Right now, they just seem like a bunch of pies.

Last edited by Being; 05-26-2009 at 05:11 PM.
Being is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 05:17 PM   #5 (permalink)
Stoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,678
Thanks: 2,551
Thanked 701 Times in 538 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP View Post
Honestly, I just have to laugh at stuff like this now. In twenty years, we are going to look back at the people involved in decisions like this just as my generation looks back on the people who stood in the way of the civil rights movement.

Shame on them, but frankly shame on the entire anti-gay movement in this country that makes courts get involved in the first place.

The human race needs to grow the f*ck up.
i've thought the exact same thing, its so true
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain.
Rubix is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design