?

Log in

About the Prop 8 lawsuit - the front row

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> kerokero

May 26th, 2009


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
02:02 pm - About the Prop 8 lawsuit
I feel like I should make this point clear to my non-law friends: while the decision of the California Supreme Court is unfortunate, the Court's hands were essentially tied. The issue being argued was not whether Prop 8 was wrong, or hateful, or a product of the LDS; the issue was whether it was an 'amendment' (requiring only a simple majority of the popular vote) or a 'revision' (requiring prior approval by 2/3 of each house of the CA legislature). However the CA Supreme Court felt about the amendment, they could only decide whether or not Proposition 8 was procedurally sufficient under the California constitution.
So please, stop Facebooking about how disappointed you are in the California Supreme Court which, if I may point out, already overturned one ban on same-sex marriage. Democracy means that sometimes the voters get to do mean, mean things to people they don't like, and until there's a recognized federal right to same-sex marriage, it will continue to be so.

(A caveat: I personally disagree vehemently with Prop 8. Of course same-sex partners should have all the rights given to heterosexual married couples. But the specific law being applied in this case means that it really could have only come out one way.)
Tags:

(6 thoughts | share your thoughts with the class)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:lobsterbox
Date:May 26th, 2009 10:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm no law student, but that's kind of what I figured. I think Proposition 8 is idiotic and mean and those who voted for it completely wrong-headed, but as you said, it was procedurally sufficient. It's sadly true that people, in a democracty, WILL get to vote for mean things for people they don't like. It sucks, but I can't imagine what else could be done in this case, and you phrased it all so very well. *sigh*
[User Picture]
From:ursako
Date:May 26th, 2009 11:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What can be done is wait. Seriously, barring a drastic shift on the Supreme Court, we're essentially waiting for the individual states or Congress to get liberal enough to start recognizing same-sex marriage (at a state level) or repealing the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (at the federal level). The good news is that there's been a pretty large demographic shift just in the last few years, so maybe given another two decades we'd have the numbers we need. *sigh*
[User Picture]
From:srcsmgrl
Date:May 26th, 2009 11:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And we need to make sure that we are not complacent if something similar comes up on the ballot in Washington. Don't assume no one would vote for it, don't assume your neighbor will vote the right way for both of you. We don't need any surprises forced on us by those that bothered to get off their asses and vote.
[User Picture]
From:ursako
Date:May 27th, 2009 12:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
Uh, too little too late- Washington already has a Defense of Marriage Act in place that prevents recognition of same-sex marriages, which was upheld by our own state Supreme Court in 2005. There is, however, a domestic partnership bill due for the vote this year.
[User Picture]
From:srcsmgrl
Date:May 27th, 2009 01:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
I hadn't thought about the other one, but I knew the domestic partnership bill was coming up.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com