With arrogance worthy of the Spanish Inquisition, leaders of the anti-civil rights "Proposition 8" group filed a brief 'commanding' the California Supreme Court to 'bow' to their will and nullify 18,000 marriages. In other words, "Happy Holidays, California! And here's your gift: a great big shiny box of lives destroyed." Ah, good times.
Luckily, California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, filed his own brief asking that the court nullify Proposition 8 on the grounds that it extinguishes civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The first report comes from Lisa Leff at the Sacramento Bee:
SAN FRANCISCO -- The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions. The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions..."For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve - even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened." (link)
I am no constitutional expert, but I am pretty sure that the the only time a legal brief counts as a commandment is when God writes it--on stone (see, e.g., The Bible).
The Los Angeles Times sums up the Attorney General's brief to the court and the subsequent rattling chains of the "Yes To 8" inquisitors:
In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."
It is the attorney general's duty to defend the state's laws, and after gay rights activists filed legal challenges to Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Brown said he planned to defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.
But after studying the matter, Brown concluded that "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."
Backers of Proposition 8 expressed anger at Brown's decision not to honor the will of voters, who approved the measure in November. "It's outrageous,"said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8. (link)
What is sad in this exchange--or maybe frightening--is the total ignorance of U.S. constitutional democracy exhibited by the Prop 8 backers.
The idea that civil rights can be stripped by a simple majority plebescite is not just unethical, but actually violates the principles on which our system of government is based. First off, it is unconstitutional to pass laws that deprite citizens of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (e.g., equal protection), a basic point the Prop 8 folks do not seem to get. Second, the purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution as a form of systemic balance to the other two branches of government--not to bow down to them.
The language of the 'Yes To 8' brief suggests that group see itself in a moral struggle not just to strip gay people of rights, but to mobilize public against the California judiciary.
Time will tell which effort will hold the day. However, I suspect there are few judges in California (or anywhere else) who respond well when lawyers 'command' them to 'bow' down. Come to think of it, nobody responds well. And when you think about it, that really is the point of this whole Prop 8 nonsense, is it not? Try to strip American citizens of their equal rights, and when that does not work: raise a bloody stink about the supposed despotic decline of the United States judicial system.
© 2008 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Four.....Just because you call his tail a leg does not make it a tail. 5,000 years of history have defined marriage as between male and female. Just because someone calls a same sex union a "marriage" does not make it a marriage.
It is just a name isn't it?
Use your own excuses back at yourselves.
If it is just a name, why are you complaining?
Does your "straight marriage" depend on a name?
Is that all that is holding it together?
I spilled my morning Java on my keyboard. What is this, a Monty Python sketch ?
The Yes to Prop 8 people are hurt in this way: the very existence of gay people hurts them (making that choice in grade 6 to be gay). The nerve of gay people to want equal treatment under the law hurts them (as we all know from our Bibles, gay people are sinners not deserving of respect, let alone equality). The audacity of gay people wanting to marry hurts them even more.
They might have to treat gays as people, as they would have themselves be treated...
The thought of having to treat everyone as equals hurts them, as God has clearly commanded otherwise (when it comes to commandments, God trumps Jesus every time on the topic of sinners...except for things like shellfish and divorce...then deafness is common).
That, and the number of politically correct groups that can be publicity attacked (because they love them and want to help of course) has dwindled over the years (the jews and blacks are verboten now).
But not to worry, the Church of today provides cover for such people as these, loving caring people who only want to bring the light of God's word into you life.
Whither you want it or not. Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war...
While I firmly oppose the redefinition of marriage, as a law abiding American their decision will be accepted as the law of the land. I presume the gay community will do likewise.
2) Far from this "5000 years" rubbish, the current definition of marriage is only a few centuries old and not even universal now (for example, the Koran allows men to take four wives. Not all Muslims observe it but it's in there).
3) If the SCOTUS somehow manage to twist the law into a pretzel as a way of denying same-sex marriage rights (which they would have to as there is no legal grounds on which it can be refused), gay people will file appeals and work to overturn the law. Just as the anti-SSM people would do. That's how the law is supposed to work.
reminds me of the difference between "new money" and "old money"
The CaSC ruling was the constitutional revision which required the amendment in the first place. If Brown is right, then he, as attorney general, perpetrated a fraud in rewriting the proposition and proclaiming, that while obnoxius, it was legal.
If he was lying to the people, he is lying to the court and thus, the thing stands.
Under the California Constitution, amemdments may be made by popular vote but alterations or revisions to the Califiornia Constitution require the approval of two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature.
The ban on same sex marriages in California was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. They can also rule that the Proposition 8 alters the constitution without meeting the requirement for doing so.
Equal protection under the law for ALL is a basic right protected in the California Constitution. The California Court has ruled more than once that marriage is a basic right that is protected under that provision.
I also noticed there was no marching to the churches in Compton that heavily promoted this Prop. Civil war? Whose gonna fight?
So...in what way is this something I should accept and be calm about?
Let's vote on your marriage and see how you feel about it. Rrrright: Not gonna happen, is it. Nice feeling, eh?
Precisely. YOU get over it. I won't.
"full faith and credit
n. the provision in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." Thus, a judgment in a lawsuit or a criminal conviction rendered in one state shall be recognized and enforced in any other state, so long as the original judgment was reached by due process of law. Each state has a process for obtaining an enforceable judgment based on a "foreign" (out-of-state) judgment." (law.com)
Congress proposes amendments.
1. Both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.
2. The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Until that happens Prop 8 is ilegal.
Prop 8 is still illegal, but not for the reasons you described. Just go to lambda legal's website, they probably explain it better than i can.
J