This PFLAGer is feeling a bit better now.

[Maat]

I was SO down after last night's Prop. 8 results came in. I had phonebanked, precint-walked, and participated in rally after No-On-8 rally.

Then, however, I saw that Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed. Their legal argument is going to succeed. I'm positive. I'm a non-practicing law school graduate, and am very happy about Lambda's effort. The last case (prior to the election) was dismissed for lack of legal standing (please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) - it's very good). We won't have that problem now. We can prove the serious harm that a plaintiff will sustain due to its passage. If we can stay the implementation of this, while it winds its way through the courts, then that will be wonderful. I can feel better thinking about this lawsuit, as we get ALL of the votes counted. Thoughts?

From Lambda Legal (quote):
http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/proposition-8-challenged.html

Lambda Legal, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) have urged the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The groups argue that Prop. 8 is invalid because it was improperly attempts to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality and deprives the courts of their essential role of protecting the rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such a radical change in the way the courts and state government work cannot be decided by a simple ballot measure. The legal groups filed the writ petition on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples.

The California Constitution makes clear that a major change in the roles played by the different branches of government cannot be made by a simple majority vote through the initiative process, but at the very least must first go through the state legislature. Changes to the underlying principles of the constitution must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature before going to voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections, arguing that the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot. The court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits.

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative ...

(please read more at the site)

[Taverner]

1. This is good

Like I've said - take this to the courts

They worked before, they will work now

[Maat]

2. I think so.

I'm usually a bit of a pessimist - but this is good stuff!

They will work, as you say, because they will be protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority, and ensuring that all receive equal protection of the law. That's what justices are suppose to do!

[Taverner]

3. Tyranny of the Majority - exactly

[AntiFascist]

4. Thanks for this...

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty straightforward. The CA Supreme Court already determined that there is a conflict with the Equal Protection clause. The only way the Religious Right can work around that is by arguing that homosexuality is a choice, which is purely based on a twisted religious belief. Religious beliefs which run counter to equal rights have no place in the state constitution.

[elshiva]

5. I LOVE YOU!

:loveya:

[Maat]

6. Let's all fight for the cause!

Let's make a donation to Lambda Legal!

You guys are all great too!

Edited to add!

We are having a peaceful protest tomorrow. I think my sign is going to read, "Stand up for fundamental rights!"

[sui generis]

7. they should have extended criteria for voter initiatives

a petition alone is NOT ENOUGH.

The next change we need to make is the how Propositions are reviewed and submitted, because this was SO inappropriate.

On a touchie feelie note, a "proposal" is generally to CONSTRUCT. This proposition, given to all the people about some of the people, was intended to destroy.

A positive word for a negative effect. If there is anything that makes me see red it is weak justification as the only justification, and dishonesty achieved through gaming the system.

[Maat]

8. Oh, yes, I agree.

We have to take of this problem - it is inexcusable to me that a bare majority of the population can amend a Constitution without any approval of the legislature. We have to also, as you say, narrowly define which "propositions" can be put on the ballot.

I agree - there is legal work to be done.