Minorities fear trend from California gay marriage ban

[cboy4]

Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:46am EST

By Peter Henderson

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.

The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation.

California's highest court agreed on November 19 to hear a challenge, based on whether the state constitution requires support from the legislature -- as well as a majority vote of the people -- to strip rights from any group.

The court had recognized such marriages in May, and about 20,000 same-sex couples wed before the November vote. Those marriages may now hang in the balance. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow gay marriage.

Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect minorities.

"They could take away any right from any group," said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

EQUAL PROTECTION 'SUBVERSION'

The ban, California Proposition 8, amended the constitution with 52 percent support -- less than is required to approve some state bond measures.

"The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule," read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. "This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality."

It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others say.

More-----------------> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AN0WC20081124

[msongs]

1. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. as you give so shall you receive. etc nt

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[bluedawg12]

3. Next? Expert: Would Consider Banning Adoptions By Native Americans

It could spread- yes it could.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4521701&mesg_id=4521701

The lives of gay people can also be stressful to children, Rekers testified. The children may experience teasing and bullying from other children who don’t approve of their parents’ orientation. And children with gay parents are likely to suffer from repeated separations because gay people are more likely to have multiple failed relationships.

Rekers said he would, in fact, favor banning anyone from adopting who had more than 18 “sex partners” during a lifetime. “I think that would be a very good social policy,” he said in a deposition.

He said he would also consider banning Native Americans from adopting because research shows that they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. “They would tend to hang around each other,” Rekers testified. “So the children would be around a lot of other Native Americans who are … doing the same sorts of things.”


More at: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/23/6861

.........

[RetiredTrotskyite]

10. We Need to Put These Fundie Asshats...

in their place.

I sure as hell HOPE other minorities wake the fuck up...this denying one majority is nothing but the top of a slippery slope.

[bluedawg12]

12. Who else will they claim is unfit for: marriage or children?

That GD thread linked us to some really scary thinking, possibly to come?

[BattyDem]

4. Ding! Ding! Ding!

It's about time people are starting to get it! A democracy can't survive if the rights of a minority are not protected and/or can be eliminated by the vote of a simple majority.

[Ian David]

5. We could re-inter the Japanese, just to make the point. n/t

[racaulk]

6. Other minorities *should* be afraid!

If one minority can be stripped of its rights by a simple majority vote from the public, then ALL minorities are at risk of losing their rights as well. And that includes the Mormons, ironically enough, although they are (for the most part) too myopic to see that.

[NMMNG]

7. Hellooooo Captain Obvious.

:eyes:

Some of us have been warning about this for months.

[yardwork]

8. Bigots often have problems with logical thinking. I've noticed this before.

[pokerfan]

9. Not a pretty thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority">Tyranny of the Majority

The idea goes back at least as far as Plato's Republic, while the phrase itself originated with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville">Alexis de Tocqueville in his http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html">Democracy in America and was further popularized by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill">John Stuart Mill, who cites de Tocqueville, in http://www.bartleby.com/130/">On Liberty; the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers">Federalist Papers frequently refer to the concept, though usually under the name of "the violence of majority faction," particularly in http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm">Federalist 10.

Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of rights in a parliamentary democracy, are commonly meant to reduce the problem.

[greeneyedboy]

11. that's why it will be overturned.

Enforcing equal protection guarantee for minorities can only be done by the courts. Proposition 8 would take that power away from the courts, and would thus be 1) a violation of the separation of powers act; 2) an illegal revision of the Constitution. The court knows better than to open this can of worms and set the precedent that minorities' fundamental rights can be subjected to the whims of the voters.