the day that the california supreme court decided what to do about prop 8.
not only were they to decide whether or not to uphold the november 4, 2008 passing of this ridiculous-to-begin-with proposition, but they were also to announce what was to happen with the 18,000 same-sex couples who had been married between may 2008 [when the high courts deemed marriage legal] and november 2008 [when we took their rights away]. the fact that they even had to debate on what was to happen to these couples was shocking to me. really? there's a CHANCE [however slim] that you could actually take these rights away from people after YOU were the ones that gave them to them in the first place? and forget who gave who any rights - just the fact that someone, anyone, would even consider reVOKING them?? that's like saying "hey jess, i know we said you could own that property. but...we've changed our mind. the general public has spoken and, frankly, doesn't want you to have that land anymore, so..well, sorry..if you don't mind we'll just take that riiiiight back, yep, there we go.. greeeat, thanks. peace!"
anyhow, i don't need to go on TOO much of a rant there, because the court did vote unanimously to keep these marriages legal.
good.
unfortunately, however, the court did decide 6-1 in favor of upholding the prop 8 decision (<--- great latimes article that may explain things a bit clearer than i) made in november. the decision was made based on the fact that the prop was put on the ballot in november as a "limited amendment" to the constitution and not a "wholesale revision," which would have required 2/3 vote from the legislature before being placed in the public's hands.
what is scary is that the court defines "an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights." soooo...does that mean that if i wanted to take away a gay person's right to go to the beach..or a latino person's right to drive...or a female's right to hold any job she is qualified to hold...i could? i've just gotta get it on the ballot and make sure people vote? because, like you said, taking away any of those rights wouldn't affect the structure of california's government. therefore, those would not be improper revisions.
hmmm....
dangerous words, court. dangerous words.
"For the court to see only structural changes as those requiring a greater majority is perhaps the worst feature of the opinion today," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, who voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds. "It makes it much too casual for individual rights to be withdrawn." (latimes)
in my experience out here in california so far, one thing has become clear: you cannot let the public vote on social progress. you just can't. people are too set in their ways, too scared, to let social change happen by their own punch of the ballot card.
what do you think would have happened if, back in 1954, the matter of desegregating schools had been put to a public vote?
i mean really.
what do you really think would have happened?
1 comment:
That photo is so powerful. :-(
I'm so angry about this.
The man I used to work for in California wrote this note on the issue and I thought I would share it with you:
My Not-So-Humble Opinion on California's Prop 8
Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 2:00pm
California’s Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage has really struck a raw nerve in me.
This is not why Americans amend our constitutions. Constitutions are written to guarantee individual rights, and with very few exceptions amendments are passed to increase or clarify those rights, especially with respect to governments’ attempts to infringe upon them.
Although this particular debate is about California, I will use the U.S. Constitution to illustrate, as it is more familiar to most people, and this is also a national debate.
Every amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an expansion of individual liberties, with the exception of the following:
16th Amendment authorizing the federal government to collect income tax
18th Amendment prohibiting the consumption of alcohol (repealed by the 21st)
Prohibition was so unpopular that it was repealed.
I’ll leave judgment of the income tax as an exercise for the reader.
As Scott Derringer asks, do Californians really value chickens’ rights more than people’s rights?
“Separate but equal” was thrown out 54 years ago. “Miscegenation” laws were thrown out 41 years ago, and I’m appalled that that’s even an English word.
To those who claim a “right to be free from gay marriage” I say, “Don’t have one!”
Post a Comment