"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses," the judge wrote. "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples."And an Q&A article on what happens next: link
Why do they even have a vote if 2 seconds later a judge can just overturn it. That upsets me!
ReplyDeleteI can understand how that would be upsetting. I felt the same way watching the bill voted into place. This blog describes it pretty well:
ReplyDeletehttp://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/06/first-maggie-gallagher-now-debra-saunders/
Here is the bulk of what they state:
In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.
Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.
Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.
Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority.
What are the "rights" of which we are protecting? What are the "rights" of marriage? Marriage grants couples certain legal rights, inheritance, power of attorney to name a few. But these rights could be granted by a civil union, or a domestic partnership. But the homosexual community opposes this idea why? Because they say it would label them as second class citizens. This implies to me that they aren't as interested in protecting their rights as they are in social status. Which brings me to my point. I believe that marriage is MORE than a right, it is a social entity. It is the very fabric on which our society is woven. As such society as a whole ought to be able to determine (by majority rule) what the definition of marriage is, (as a social entity). My heart goes out to gays and lesbians, they DO NEED their rights protected. Rights to visit loved ones in the hospital and make end of life decisions. However I do not believe that this has to be accomplished through marriage. What ever your views on this matter are I think this was the WRONG way to accomplish the end goal.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your response to my post. I agree with the outcome of the trial.
ReplyDeleteMy belief is simple:
Laws are made to protect others. Until it is proven that allowing LGBT marriages harms others, I will always be against such laws.
One more thing (as an FYI), course you could just ask your smarty pants hubby Kent. I would love to hear what he thinks since I trust his opinion more than some internet site. :)
ReplyDeleteSo from what I have read, to appeal a decision, the Prop 8 supporters must show that allowing same-sex couples the right to get married somehow invades their rights and causes them harm. Since, Judge Walker already ruled that "Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex." it would infer that an appeal is unlikely.
The best argument that Prop 8 supporters can make is that they would be injured by the simple fact that California is not enforcing a law passed by the People. But the Supreme Court has held that "[an] asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court." (Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754 (1984))
This all makes me wonder if the "this will go all the way to the supreme court" comment may not hold true. This is good (and bad) for both sides of the argument. I could argue myself blue in the face on which way I would prefer it to go. Hope to see you soon.
He hasn't follow it much, he doesn't care for much for politics. But he did tell me he wasn't surprised by the outcome, he said legally they had a pretty weak case. I'm not sure if the same holds true for an appeal or not.
ReplyDeleteI love that we can disagree and still be friends. You arguments make me think, and I like that, and I think that was your intent.