Is this politics, or is this civil rights?

[figmo]

In California one of the things we'll be voting on is Proposition 8. If passed, it would add the following wording to the California State Constitution:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

An identical proposition passed in 2000 but was ruled "unconstitutional" by the CA State Supreme Court because it discriminates against a segment of the population.

If it passes again, the court is likely to make the same ruling, just as the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anti-flag-burning legislation as "unconstitutional."

I don't know what percentage of the California population is gay, but nonetheless, such a law would only legalize active discrimination, just as the "separate but equal" laws did years ago. What I don't understand is why the supporters of this proposition are so adamant to try to legislate discrimination which, if passed, will be overturned yet again.

Comments

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

As others have pointed out, this amends the state Constitution. so it neatly avoids the fact that discrimination is against everything our state stands for.

Of course, what the morons fail to account for is that if Prop 8 passes, the next step is to challenge the validity of the Constitutional ban in Federal Court using the 14th Amendment's ban on the denial of rights without due process as the main argument.

Since the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a basic right, they'd have no choice to strike down the Prop 8 ban.. along with every other state ban on gay marriage. DOMA will also be toast.

Like most bigots, the Prop 8 supporters don't think past their noses.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

The Roberts court won't do it, unless one of the five conservatives breaks rank.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Come on. You're telling me you believe that such fine jurists as the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to compromise their beliefs on states rights?

(Yeah, I thought so. I expect one might not.)

[merlinpole.livejournal.com]

They're narcissicist abusive bullies. It's difficult to determine which is the worst. Scalia and Alito's claims of personal privilege are especially revolting (Scalia prohibits anyone recording him when he talks.... yeah, sure, open and honest government, yeah, sure....)

[capplor.livejournal.com]

Ref what I put in the main thread, below.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

See comment above for a more detailed analysis.

I am not persuaded that this gets excluded on equal protection. First, you'd have to establish that homosexuals are a protected class. The Court as never gone that far. Next, you would have to settle on the level of scrutiny. While race discrimination gets heightened scrutiny, gender discrimination gets something like intermediate scrutiny kinda sorta. Then you would have to determine that the proferred justification of the state does not survive under the relevant scrutiny standard.

None of these steps is a sure thing, particularly with the current configuration of the Court. This is why federal litigation has generally been considered too dangerous. It is why the Boy Scouts can ban participation by openly gay scouts as a First Amendment issue, but cannot exclude black scouts (BSA v. Dale). It is why a parade can exclude openly gay participants as a First Amendment issue, where they could not exclude based on color or gender (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay & Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston).

This is why working the legislative process is so much better than trying to do this via the judiciary. Win in the legislature and you have a real, honest to God win that shows a social consensus for equal rights.

[merlinpole.livejournal.com]

What the law says and what gets enforced, are often wildly different--just look at the circus of the Department of Justice the past eight years, the circus and spitefulness involved in even attempting to investigate anything from the chain of command in the outing of Valier Plame/Valerie Wilson, to the firings of federal prosecutors, to the issue of "torture".... the past eight years the misadministration of the country has been the worst ever, but with a majority in Congress either being synchophants or muzzled by intimidation or a misplaced sense of fair play/attempt at collaboration (Pelosi failing to comprehend the meaning of "collaborateur"....)or toadies to some degree or other wanting to favor crumbs of favor, Congress' interest in action/actions regarding changing the situation, have been minimal/ineffectual/hands-off.

Waxman and Kuicinich are among the few people in Congress I consider deserve respect in the situation, but they are a tiny minority. They have worked to change, and been squelched in almost every endeavor they've undertaken regarding investigation and prosecution....