CA Supreme Court Rumored to Be Announcing Decision on Prop 8 Tomorrow
May 20th, 2009 | By A Progressive Girl | Read more in: GLBTQSince this morning, I’ve learned that the rumor was unfounded...no decision on May 21st. We continue to wait.
I’ve thought a lot about how tomorrow is going to go. In case you haven’t heard, the California Supreme Court is rumored to be making their decision regarding the legality of last fall’s Proposition 8 decision to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Barricades have been dropped off in The Castro, the historic gay neighborhood tucked in the hills of
If the CA Supremes rule in favor of letting Prop 8 stand, I believe they will have made a mistake that will haunt them forever. The ramifications of bowing to pressure by a simple majority of people making decisions not grounded in law and the tenets of our
To make such decisions by popular vote that affect HUMAN lives and set one group above another in their “equalness” is plain wrong. Especially when it’s based on some theological doctrine most of them don’t really understand and surely don’t practice well based on what I’ve seen of a general pick-and-choose type of religious behavior of many people I know who oppose equal rights.
I get angry with some African-American leadership who claim we dare not grab onto the words “civil rights” because we were not oppressed for hundreds of years. Should I, or anyone, have to be oppressed for even ONE MINUTE living in the
After the Prop 8 win last fall, many of those who voted in favor of discrimination were shocked and appalled that we didn’t just shut up and go away. The vote decided it. In their minds, it was over. We kept rallying and protesting. We kept up the messaging – some of it even angrier than before, but some of it changing direction to come to a place where we might get greater understanding.
Our own activist organizations were thrown in tumult as blame was bandied about for our failure to win support great enough that we would no longer be fighting this fight. The old guard and the up-and-coming activists tussled mightily over what the proper course would be. And, we had some bad actors who did some things they shouldn’t, like vandalize churches and temples. I think this just goes to show that we are indeed human, just like those who would further oppress us.
I was heartened to see that our major loss in California did not deter those who were fighting in other states and that we have had several wins over the past few months in both states which have approved gay marriage and those who have amendments against gay marriage who have passed other laws to grant gay couples some form of recognition to protect their families.
What seems to be missing in the Yes on 8 people’s equation of their version of the perfect
Tomorrow, if we win. I will celebrate on my front lawn. I will invite all the gay people I know to celebrate with me so my neighbors who tied their Yes on 8-ness to their Americanism can see our joy. If we lose, I will go to the capitol and protest – once again – and hope that eventually we will overcome.
“If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.” ~ Chief Joseph















Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?






Keeping my fingers crossed for all my US friends!
[Reply]
You seem to be forgetting the distinction between a constitutional amendment and a statute.
The Supreme Court’s role is to interpreting the state constitution. It only protects the rights of the minority from encroachment by the majority as a result of its duty to uphold the state constitution. Protection of minority rights is not a goal of the court apart from its interpretive power over the constitution.
Thus, while statutes can not abrogate minority rights, constitutional amendments can .
[Reply]
Michael, you seem to have a solid understanding of the law. But, as you probably know, the basis by which this was brought before the Supremes was because “our side” believes it was added to the ballot illegally. That, in fact, this was a revision to the Constitution and should have been handled in another way. If the justices agree, then gay marriage will be legal once more. And, will remain so until asshat Yes on 8ers find a way to get it on the ballot again, only this time legally.
Removing rights already granted is unprecedented in the course of California law as far as I know. That ought to say something pretty significant about that 52% of voters who thought that was a good thing to do.
[Reply]
I have read about court decisions where amendments to the California constitution that reduced the scope of a legal protection of a minority right were upheld as legitimate amendments.
By contrast, I have not even heard of a decision that establishes that an amendment is insufficient to reduce the scope of legal protections of minority rights, nor that the constitution’s Declaration of Rights (Article 1) have such a special place in the state constitution that it is beyond the reach of the amendment process.
[Reply]
Again, I can just reiterate that is the basis for the challenge – that the process by which it was amended was faulty. And, I guess if it was as simple as it sounds to me that minority rights once granted, should not be taken away, we wouldn’t be here discussing this. That’s why we have courts and why we await the decision.
[Reply]