-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/lawsuit-filed-against-anti-gay-prop-8.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I haven't seen many people commenting on the hypocrisy and irony of african-american turnout for a vote against discrimination - leading to constitutional discrimination. Blogged above (from a science perspective).
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lieberm...
This is exactly what I've been saying...
the California constitution already protects GLBT people from discrimination, so our rights are equal under the constitution.
this proposition says that we're not able to marry in California. Therefore, the lawsuit is pointing out that prop 8 is unconstitutional because it discriminates against GLBT people.
that's why prop 22 was overturned in the courts.
the ONLY way prop 8 can be added to the constitution is for them to overturn GLBT protections that the California constitution grants us... THEN pass prop 8 again.
this was a stupid amendment, I'm NOT a lawyer and I could see that.
essentially, they're trying to re-write the constitution to say 'California sees all people as having equal rights... but doesn't recognise marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman'.
doesn't make sense... and CAN'T be legal without changing what's already granted in the constitution.
It looks like California propositions can be used for small changes to the constitution, but a change that would essentially change the rights of a whole group of people isn't a small change... it needs to be voted on by the legislature BEFORE going to the ballot.
I guess, considering the state legislature PASSED gay marriage bills twice (arnie vetoed twice, of course).... the religious right knew that the legislature would table the proposition indefinitely. so they dodged the legislature.
all in all, with either or both arguements, I'd bet everything that California isn't going to lose gay marriage.
Marriage is a civil ceremony given recognized by the state with additional privileges. I do not see how it can stand.
http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonor...
It seems the key phrases in that press release are "the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone" relating to the constitution itself, and wouldn't mean much without being spelled out, and "the organizing principles of state government" meaning changes to the constitution, which can only be done by legislation (OK, I get that).
I mean, is "the principle" spelled out fully, or just implied?
Will look up the CA constitution, but it seems they are talking procedure here only.
If I were Solomon (as if), seems I would give the state the right to legislate civil unions, which everyone could, under no discrimination, have and "marriage" would simply be a religious ceremony, with no legal status, frosting on the cake, as it were. In that case, just form your own church if you need that kind of ceremony.
that's why prop 22 was ruled unconstitutional in the first place.
Thanks for posting it, John.
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
Mormons want to make nice now
http://www.sltrib.com/Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20H...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJYrozUko_I
I still think we should cancel Pride parades in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and watch California merchants beg to have Prop 8 repealed.
Now that California voters have outlawed same-sex marriage, an LDS Church leader called Wednesday for members to heal any rifts caused by the emotional campaign by treating each other with "civility, with respect and with love."
"We hope that every one would treat each that way no matter which side of this issue they were on," said Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Presidency of the Seventy.
-------------------------------------
How about, "No?"
I'm also a lawyer, but this is just plain bad writing, period. Legal briefs can get technical by necessity...but the opening paragraph should make the basic point in a clear manner, be free of jargon, and should be understandable by any moderately intelligent, literate person. This one bogs down in the first sentence.
I want to play devil's advocate, though. With stupid ballot issues like this, you have to ask yourself, what is more important? Legitimacy won through the democratic process, or securing your rights as people?
I think queer people have gone about this the wrong way, personally. Priority number one should have been to secure your rights as people of this nation. As we've seen with history, equality comes with a struggle, and the American people are not yet ready to apply the word "marriage" to the union of two men.
In most states, you don't even have rights as partners now. It is a shame to lose the battle, but even worse to lose the rights you are owed as taxpayers and citizens.
I think the queer nation needs to step back an reassess its priorities.
We Californians don't take it sitting down.
We fight back! We didn't ask for this amendment. We had no idea that the MORMON church would be spending money in OUR state to dictiate THEIR viewpoints. First off, they should definitely lose their tax-exempt status.
Also, an aside, the amendment should be thrown out because the YesOn8 LIED by saying that Obama supported the amendment. He did not.
I feel good about this lawsuit - we are going to win!
But the battle has just begun.