Some proposition 8 remarks

[t0dd]

In the court ruling for "In re Marriage Cases", which legalized same-sex marriage in California last year, I was reading over the concurrence of Justice Kennard, and found the following excerpts especially intriguing.

"The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection."

...

"Absent a compelling justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as marriage to any segment of society. Whether an unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right has occurred is not a matter to be decided by the executive or legislative branch, or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law for resolution by the judicial branch of state government.

Let's hope her view hasn't changed.

It's interesting that Jerry Brown made this same argument in his brief to the court: "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

If anyone is interested, you can hear the audio broadcast of "In Re Marriage Cases" here:

http://easylink.playstream.com/aocstream/progressive/sct/sct_030408.mp3?dl=true (FYI.. Chief Justice George sounds like Jack Nicholson.. haha, and Justice Kennard has a Dutch accent)

While prop 8 is unprecedented, and we have no way of predicting the outcome, it is interesting to listen to the arguments and how the justices respond. It gives you an idea of who is on our side. Even Justice Corrigan, who dissented from the majority in the original case, believed the right to marry should be extended to gays and lesbians. However, she believed the people should be the ones to ultimately decide when that happens. Is it possible her view has changed? I guess time will tell.

If you appreciate law, all of this makes fascinating research. I'm no legal expert, but I think given the arguments before the court, and the opinion issued in "In Re Marriage Cases", the court will find some way to invalidate proposition 8. I hope so, anyway :-)

[msongs]

1. if it's overturned will there be riots in the street paid for by $$ from utah? nt

[xchrom]

3. there were 'riots' when limbaugh heads were 'denied' in florida in 00 --

so why not in this?

[nichomachus]

6. I think the donation well may have dried up

since the names of the contributors to hate were made public.

I don't think you'll see the same rush to donate that you saw the last time. People thought they were hating in secret.

[xchrom]

2. interesting recommend

[pinto]

4. Good snag. Jerry Brown's no fool. I think he's speaking to what he sees will be a majority,

reiterating that language in the argument from the state. It's a good move.

[dickthegrouch]

5. That decision is worth its weight in gold

I have said all along that I think there is enough language in last year's decision to overturn Prop8 fairly quickly. I think they knew exactly what they were writing last year and the various amicus briefs on our side will just crystallize their ability to get it right once and for all.

All briefs (for both sides) are here
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
I haven't had time to read them all, yet. The ones I have read are fascinating.
D

[nichomachus]

7. I don't think the pro-Prop H8 people have a leg to stand on

But, then, I thought Bush and Rove didn't in 2000 either. So, take my opinion for what it's worth.

But this quote above, clearly seems to indicate that Prop H8 is invalid. I will watch the hearing tomorrow with interest.

And then, we have to wait up to 90 days for a ruling, although it could come earlier.

I've already decided to go to San Francisco for Pride this year. Either way, it's going to be a feisty time. It's the 40th anniversary of Stonewall -- and there will either be a major celebration over Prop H8 -- or a riot.

[writerdad]

10. Strict Constructionists

Ironically, it's the conservative makeup of the court that will (hopefully) get prop 8 tossed.

[bluedawg12]

8. Is it really upon us already?

I am holding my hopes and fears in check.

Thanks for the info.

[ronnykmarshall]

9. The court has 90 days after today to respond.

I'm not holding my breath, but I'm praying for the best.