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

[bovil.livejournal.com]

It was an initiative statute.

As for amendments not being able to violate the constitution, there's a real question there. The initiative process and the associated easy amendment process (compared to other states or the US Constitution) has left our constitution riddled with loopholes and contradictions.