14th Amendment: R.I.P.


The California Supreme Court today upheld a voter-approved ban -- the recent so-called Prop 8 -- on same-sex marriage, but in the same ruling decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who got married before the ban took effect last November will continue as legally married couples.

Is that not an astonishing ruling? Same-sex couples who were married several months ago did so legally, but couples seeking the same status today seek an illegal contract -- illegal because of religious insanity. Excuse me a second while my head explodes. In other words, in the brief time after the first Supreme Court ruling on this issue in May 2008 until the religious crazies could get a ballot initiative before the voters last November -- a total of six months -- same-sex marriage was legal. Now it's not. WTF?

Today's ruling indicates the Court was unwilling to, in effect, nullify the decision by a majority of California voters (52% to 48%) who decided in the November 2008 initiative to deny the legal, civil right of marriage to couples who happened to be of the same sex. That decision had, of course, no basis in law -- except mob law -- and had its origins exclusively in religious nuttiness and church-ordered persecution.

Today's ruling codifies the right of the majority to tyrannize the minority -- at the very least where it concerns denying legal status to people who happen to be homosexual. How else should one read the decision? It was only a year ago that the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights" including, obviously, the right to sign a marriage contract that contains the same rights and responsibilities whether the signatories are homosexual or heterosexual.

Last year, writing for the 4-3 majority, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples." The ruling was comparable to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage (which was also a religious nut-ball ban to begin with). The California ruling was about civil marriage; about fundamental, equal rights under the law. It has nothing to do with religion. People who want to worship a god or an animal or a piece of furniture have a legal right to deny sanctifying a marriage between people who do not worship a god or an animal or a piece of furniture. And that's where it ends. The State issues a marriage license, not a snarling pack of religious bigots.

But, we know the story of Prop 8, don't we. Shortly after last year's ruling on the denial of the civil right of marriage, the religious assholes went to work and Proposition 8 was born in an attempt (today proven successful) to duplicate a 2000 voter referendum that banned same-sex marriage. It was that law that was struck down in May of 2008.

So, what now? For the time being, the Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is dead, murdered in California by religious freaks who insist god said he didn't want the queers to marry. The Clause provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Hey, ask any religious idiot and he or she will tell you without hesitation: "Gawd's law is waaayyyyy more important than man's law." The California Supreme Court today agreed with that steaming pile of religious bullshit.

- MDM

Mike Malloy can be heard daily on his radio show 9pm - 12pm ET. Visit
www.mikemalloy.com to stream live or find a station near you.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:41 AM on 05/29/2009
I don't get it.... just don't. Does this ruling really imply that we can take away any groups civil rights so long as we pass an amendment first?? As long as enough of us believe some subset of our population to be beneath us or undeserving of certain rights we can just do away with them?? Granted I'm not legal scholar, but on a common sense level that just sounds crazy! It's a might makes right debacle.

Sadly, whenever I hear this topic debated I rarely hear supporters challenged from this direction. We need to start asking them if they really support this ability to take away civil rights with a simple majority vote. Ask them, "So if a state voted by referendum that marriage was only between one woman and one man of the same race that would be ok too?". Do states/people have the right to define marriage in this way as well? I doubt they would be comfortable affirming this version of their argument, and good it should make them uncomfortable!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bibimimi
This effer's rigged...
02:43 PM on 05/28/2009
Upholding Prop H8 is just a symptom of the cancer that is taking California down, right before our very eyes. They are hemorrhaging people, too. No one seems to spend their money there. The Gov. was not able to turn up with a BIG gun and save it.
06:02 AM on 05/28/2009
Folks: Hearings on the Uniting American Families Act are June 3rd!
Have you written to congress or posted?
11:28 PM on 05/27/2009
What the California Supreme Court did was acknowledged that Californians have a right to make/change laws themselves -which they've had all along. If you don't like it, go through the process of having it changed...without using the courts as a short cut.
01:04 AM on 05/28/2009
The courts make laws based on judicial decisions all the time, so you kinda lost your point with your last part there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
02:37 PM on 05/28/2009
Where they messed up was in deciding that Californians can take away rights from their fellow residents by a simple majority vote. It's NOT ALLOWED THAT WAY!!!
08:42 PM on 05/27/2009
I like the sentiment, but the 14th amendment has nothing to do with what you are talking about. The CA Supreme Court can only rule on the California Constitution, whether or not that is in line with the Federal constitution is up to the US Supreme Court to enforce through the 14th amendment. They have been careful not to invoke federal law at this point because they aren't sure what the outcome would be and we don't want this kind of decision happening on the federal level at this time because it could really screw things up. It will come in time, hopefully sooner than later.
01:06 AM on 05/28/2009
Federal laws always trump states---- especially when they already exist. Arizona can't repeal a woman's right to vote for example.......(although they'd love to, I am sure!)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
08:28 AM on 05/28/2009
First, Federal Laws supercede state laws, so they CAN rule based on what the Federal Constitution says.

Second, BOTH the Federal and the California Constitutions have an equal protection clause, saying that ALL people in both the state and the country will be treated equally under the law!
06:07 PM on 05/27/2009
Love Me Some Mike Malloy!! Great surprise to see you on here--hope you are paying your bills and that Molly and that lucky wife of yours are well!!

Damn the wackos poking their noses into someone else's legal contract!!!! I wonder if they would mind if we started to tax their "belief factories"-- I mean, they do produce something, no?
(Smoking piles of heap, but hey, who's counting?)

Your fan eternal,
Julie in Scottsdale, AZ
allamericanboy
One of the original nattering nabobs.
04:31 PM on 05/27/2009
Mike, an excellent post. I also want you to know you are the best at what you do. I live in Oklahoma where, as you know, politics sucks. If I couldn't hear you on my XM radio at night I couldn't bear it. Please know there are people out here who you help keep sane just by doing what you do.
04:18 PM on 05/27/2009
The court's decision was the victory of the tyranny of the majority. The CA Supreme Court has said loudly and clearly that if you can get enough votes, (50% plus one), you can take away civil rights from any group you want. You get enough votes from right handed people, you can ban left handed people from getting married!

Sounds silly? Apparently not if you are on CA Supreme Court.

It's time the LGBT Community realizes that marches, rallies, blogs, youtube videos and bumper stickers are NOT going to win this fight. LGBT Americans are taxed as full citizens of our nation while being officially relegated to second-class citizenship. The Republican Party is happy with that arrangement, and the Democratic Party is too scared of being painted as being to "pro-gay" to do anything more than just talk about it while doing nothing.

In CA the answer is clear. The State of California is literally broke. The fiscal crisis that looms over our state is massive and overshadows nearly all other issues. If even a moderate percentage of LGBT
Californians went and stopped their state income tax payroll withholding, it would bring the state to a halt overnight.

The answer in the fight for LGBT equality is to use the power of the Gay Dollar. It's time to tell the rest of America that if LGBT Americans are not treated as full citizens, then they refuse to be taxed as such.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RadicalRuss
Host of The Russ Belville Show
05:34 PM on 05/27/2009
Yes, we must ban this unnatural choice of sinistrality, or so-called "left-handedness"! God obviously made us to be right-handed and those who choose to use their unnatural hand for primary dexterity live an ungodly lifestyle.

Furthermore, so-called "left-handed" items like scissors, pitchers, and guitars must be destroyed. Sinistralists like Jimi Hendrix and Paul McCartney defile the guitar and the bass by stringing them in an unnatural manner. If God wanted sinistrals to play unnaturally, He'd made backwards pianos, violins, and saxophones.

Beware the sinistral agenda! Both John McCain and Barack Obama are sinistrals, so it is obvious how deeply this sinistral agenda is trying to force acceptance of their "leftie" ways down our throat!

(Tongue slightly in-cheek - my grandpa and mother were both forced to tie their dominant left hands behind their backs in school. My brother's young enough to be accepted for his sinistral orientation. This is a fun tack to take with a left-handed homobigot.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:12 PM on 05/27/2009
And people wonder why I have issues with people who vote from a religious platform...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftRight
TANSTAAFL
07:09 PM on 05/26/2009
So wait, now the California Supreme Court has made three distinct classes of people?? One group which can do whatever it wants, one group that got in under the wire, but be careful about divorce, and one group that's just unequal????
photo
StevenWells
Objects in the avatar are larger than they appear
01:31 PM on 05/27/2009
That's about the size of it...for now. There's the potential for many more "classes" in the future, inasmuch as the court has explicitly affirmed the right of the majority to restrict, through the ballot initiative process, the rights of any group of people.

It'll be, um, interesting, shall we say, to see where that leads us.
01:22 AM on 05/28/2009
Nicely put.