Prop 8 CA Supreme Court decision Tuesday

[Evangeline]

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will announce it's decision on same sex marriage tomorrow at 10 am.



On Tuesday morning, the California Supreme Court plans to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. Gay rights advocates maintain that the issue was improperly put before voters; they say it revised the state constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
If its seven justices strike down Proposition 8, the soonest gay couples could resume marrying would be 30 days later, once their opinion becomes final. That would make California the sixth state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.


I hope the court allows equal rights for all. Until tomorrow...

[Donkey]

I hope they overturn the bullshit too, but I don't really understand the legal reasoning?

[Evangeline]

I hope they overturn the bullshit too, but I don't really understand the legal reasoning?

they say it revised the state constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

ten characters

[Donkey]

Does your constitution have an addendum that says "If it's super dramatic it must be passed in the legislature first" or something?

[Evangeline]

LOL! I don't know. But I guess they are trying to prove it should....I'll try to find out more.

[Evangeline]

I guess there's a precedent set that a ballot initiative cannot substantially change the constitution. So people can't vote for an amendment to the constitution. An amendment can only be made by the legislature. And Prop 8 amends the constitution to ban gay marriage.


In the case of Livermore v. Waite (1894), the CASC ruled that an initiative can effect a change only if it is "within the lines" of the existing Constitution. In McFadden v. Jordan (1948), the court ruled that it may not “substantially alter the purpose” of the Constitution or attempt to “attain objectives clearly beyond the lines of the Constitution as now cast.”

An initiative is a revision rather than an amendment if it changes the underlying principles of the existing Constitution. The express purpose of Proposition 8 is to take away a person’s right to marry someone of the same gender. The implicated right —- the right to marry the person of one’s choosing —- is protected by California’s Constitution as fundamental and inalienable. Although it is not an expressly enumerated in our Constitution, the right to marry is embodied in the right to privacy and it is a component of the right to liberty protected by the due process clause (as right to privacy is similary emodied in the United States Constitution).
Prop 8 specifically targets gay men and lesbian women, a constitutionally-protected class of people who are entitled to heightened level of protection. In re Marriage Cases held that sexual orientation is “a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment”. By denying a fundamental and inalienable right to one class of citizens while preserving it for another, Proposition 8 completely eliminates the principle of equal protection on which our Constitution was built.

Finally, the separation of powers doctrine prohibits the electorate, in passing Proposition 8, from interfering with one of the powers occupied exclusively by the judicial branch. If the legislative branch —- acting through the initiative power in passing Proposition 8 —- succeeded in wresting this power from the courts, it will have effectively abolished the equal protection guarantee itself. Consequently, the separation of powers clause prohibits the electorate from using the initiative power to strip the courts of its central power to enforce the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.


http://www.examiner.com/x-4107-Gay--Lesbian-Issues-Examiner~y2009m5d25-Top-5-reasons-why-Prop-8-should-be-overturned

[Evangeline]

IMHO the constitution of any state or of the whole USA should never take rights away from people. It should only grant rights or deter the government from denying rights of the people.

[Michael]

I guess there's a precedent set that a ballot initiative cannot substantially change the constitution. So people can't vote for an amendment to the constitution. An amendment can only be made by the legislature. And Prop 8 amends the constitution to ban gay marriage.
As far as I understand the matter, this is the key legal issue the court is considering.

I'm very curious to read the court's ruling on this.

[Donkey]

Unfortunate. :(

[Michael]

I've just read a few quick reviews of the decision. Seems like the reasoning is 'good law'. I have no objections to the decision on that account. As a general rule, a 6:1 decision is decisive - appeal is a waste of time.

The name of the game is clear now. One must use the ballot box (i.e. the Legislature) or another ballot proposition to reverse it. The courts are not going to.

[Donkey]

I've just read a few quick reviews of the decision. Seems like the reasoning is 'good law'. I have no objections to the decision on that account. As a general rule, a 6:1 decision is decisive - appeal is a waste of time.

The name of the game is clear now. One must use the ballot box (i.e. the Legislature) or another ballot proposition to reverse it. The courts are not going to.
I agree. While I disagree fundamentally with Prop 8, the precedent struck me as a bit bizarre.