Comments on: The Biggest Issue With Proposition 8 Besides Proposition 8

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:53:41 +0000

If Brown vs Board of Education had been put to a popular vote the same year the SCOTUS made its ruling, how many states would it have won in?

I was dismayed how many otherwise apparently sensible people completely forgot the whole ‘judicial review of legislation’ bit when the California Supreme Court made its ruling earlier this year. Didn’t ANYONE watch Schoolhouse Rock? Not to mention the fact that Prop 8 was written to RETROACTIVELY invalidate legal marriages. Last I heard, laws like that were characteristic of a very different kind of polity.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:01:44 +0000

“You kiss your momma with that mouth?”

I noticed you didn’t deny Ed’s claim.

And a robust democracy includes checks and balances so the majority can not take away the rights of the minority.

“To your point, it looks like the California Supreme court is looking at the Propostition now”

And as a point of law, Prop 8 should be struck down. And next time it comes to the ballot box, it should fail outright.

By: william

william — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:45:35 +0000

ed,

You kiss your momma with that mouth?

Parthenon,

To your point, it looks like the California Supreme court is looking at the Propostition now –

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1387052.html

By: The Dark Avenger

The Dark Avenger — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:24:56 +0000

The referendum, along with the initiative and recall, were enshrined into California law by a Republican progressive governor some 70 years ago, and his stated goal at the time was to keep Democrats from the governorship.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:02:42 +0000

Thad, I agree regarding timing. If this is like the space between Brown and Loving, it’s going to be 13 years from Lawrence to the same-sex marriage decision… so 2016 at the earliest. And Brown was an actual affirmation of racial equality, whereas Lawrence just said you couldn’t arrest gay people for doing what lots of straight people do. And a few years before Lawrence, SCOTUS had to explain in Romer that no, you can’t amend your state constitution to express how much you dislike gay people.

Hmm. At this rate there will be a gay person on the Court by the time they rule for same-sex marriage.

By: Thad

Thad — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:14:12 +0000

@anotherbozo: ugh, that’s the OTHER bad California initiative that Arizona just passed.

Re: Supreme Court: Kennedy and Scalia are 72; they’re not likely to retire during the coming Presidential term. This IS going to come down to a SCOTUS decision, but this is certainly not the Court to take it to.

By: PG

PG — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:56:45 +0000

Countdown until we are told by the usual folks, yet again, that Prop 8 is not discrimination because gay people now have the same right as straight people to marry somebody of the opposite gender.

They do. The reason this is impermissible under the U.S. Constitution (but possibly not the California constitution) is that banning same-sex marriage is making a legal distinction based on sex where there is no compelling government interest to do so. It’s the same reason banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional under the U.S. constitution (as the CA supreme court recognized in Perez v. Sharpe, 20 years before Loving). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for years that laws can’t treat men and women differently unless there is a compelling government interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet recognized “sexual orientation” as a suspect classification, and personally I don’t think it makes sense to base the right to same-sex marriage on whether someone is homosexual or not. Unlike our historic treatment of race (check off a box) and sex (Male and Female are the only options), sexuality is on a spectrum, and someone should be able to identify as straight and still be able to obtain a same-sex marriage if she wants.

By: LiveFreeOrDie08

LiveFreeOrDie08 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:47:36 +0000

Standing in line to Vote the question I heard most frequently was “What’s that one about?”. Confidence inspiring to see voters condensing their considered voting judgment into something that looks more akin to filling out a keno bet at at a buffet table in Vegas. “Hmmm, that looks like a yes…yes…oh, no….yes”.

Voters care about maybe 2 Propositions, and probably don’t research either one beyond what they see slathered all over their teeveees.

It’s a great system from a theoretical perspective, but the reality of the Prop system is that it causes more harm than good.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:23:58 +0000

As far as Prop 8 itself, I don’t know how making a second class of citizenry stands up in the Supreme Court, so we’ll see.

That was my first thought. Don’t seem constitutional on it’s face.

“You can has marriage. Oops, no you can’t.”

When are we going to finally figure out you can’t legislate morality?

By: Parthenon

Parthenon — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:21:53 +0000

If this isn’t a violation of the equal protection clause, I’m not sure what is. If the judges had the sense to kill prop. 187 from way back when, I can’t see this lasting long.

The state referendum needs to die. It turns out all the extremists against it and only some of the moderates for it.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:05:20 +0000

Countdown until we are told by the usual folks, yet again, that Prop 8 is not discrimination because gay people now have the same right as straight people to marry somebody of the opposite gender.

And hey, maybe there’s something to that. Straight people marry people they don’t love and aren’t sexually compatible with all the time, so…

By: ed

ed — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:09:21 +0000

More shorter william: Fags don’t deserve equal rights because they’re fags.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:02:59 +0000

America isn’t a Democracy, it’s a Republic. Or so cons like william like to tell us when the election at stake doesn’t have to do with hating gays.

By: anotherbozo

anotherbozo — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:57:17 +0000

GREAT insight, Oliver. I’m originally from California, the state that once cut its own throat educationally by voting down property taxes and has made a sad spectacle of itself since. Never occurred to me that it was the SYSTEM that led to this madness, but I think you’re totally right. This is one case where the legislature should have the reins.

By: Bruce Henry

Bruce Henry — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:56:37 +0000

William has never heard of the concept of “the tyranny of the majority.”
The Proposition system is fine for questions of taxation, bond issues, etc. Constitutional amendments about fundamental human rights? Not so much.

By: william

william — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:27:53 +0000

Shorter Willis…”I hate democracy!”