I read this just now, another article regarding the attempts to remove Proposition 8 from the ballot, primarily because it represents a "revision" to the Constitution, rather than an "amendment." Not an easy read, but a convincing case.
Money quote: "If the Supreme Court permits Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot, the Court in fact would have harmed the very institution it sought to protect. If Justice Ronald George and the California Supreme Court fail to remove Proposition 8 and we win in November, our marriage rights may, NO RATHER WILL, be put up to a simple initiative vote at every major election cycle. Whoever loses will always return. And with that threat, same gender couples will face the continual threat of invalidity, without any of the permanence the framers envisioned for the California Constitution."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
My response to the "money quote"
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the state constitution.
The state constitution gives voters the power to amend it through the amendment procedure, as voters in other states have done.
The only reason same gender couples face the continual threat of invalidity is because most of American society do not think of same gender relationships as valid.
Furthermore, stunts like trying to remove Proposition 8 from the ballot will only cause people do dig in their heels in their beliefs about same gender couples. You can not make people accept your couplings by acting as though their opinion should not count at all.
Michael -
"The only reason same gender couples face the continual threat of invalidity is because most of American society do not think of same gender relationships as valid."
And in 1948, when Sharp v. Perez came down (the California Supreme Court ruling that invalidated miscegenation laws), 96% of America didn't think interracial relationships should be considered valid.
The courts are there, in part, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
And in 1948, when Sharp v. Perez came down (the California Supreme Court ruling that invalidated miscegenation laws), 96% of America didn't think interracial relationships should be considered valid.
Not invalid enough to amend the constitution to outlaw interracial marriage, apparently.
The courts are there, in part, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Only if it coincides with the constitution.
And constitutions can be amended, for better or for worse.
"And in 1948, when Sharp v. Perez came down (the California Supreme Court ruling that invalidated miscegenation laws), 96% of America didn't think interracial relationships should be considered valid.
Not invalid enough to amend the constitution to outlaw interracial marriage, apparently."
Perhaps people realized, once those marriages began, that it wasn't such a big deal, after all.
Post a Comment