"Proposition 8 Sets a Dangerous Precedent that Threatens More than Just Marriage Rights for Gays....

[AntiFascist]

and Lesbians" in a letter of support submitted yesterday before the CA Supreme Court:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/letter-support-s168047.pdf

Under Section B 3:

allowing voters to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry would expose other fundamental rights of gay and lesbian people, as well as fundamental rights of other minority groups, to elimination by initiative. As this Court has reminded us, 'the traditional well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment"... Just because one may not foresee future instances of discrimination does not mean that they will not occur: "the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that 'times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.'" ...

Thus, to characterize such a violent departure from the well-established function of equal protection as a mere amendment to the Constitution would set a precedent that would be very difficult to distinguish in future cases. Finally, as discussed below, characterization of Proposition 8 as an amendment and not a revision would divest the Legislature of its authority, in accordance with article XVIII, to subject future measures that eliminate fundamental rights of protected minority groups to the legislative process before placing them before the public.

Other sections point out:

A. The Court Should Accept Original Jurisdiction of the Petition

B. The Court's Vital Role In Ensuring Equal Protection Is Improperly Eviscerated by Proposition 8

1. The Court Has A Unique Role To Safeguard Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights.

2. Because Proposition 8 Violates the Equal Protection Guarantee and Unfairly Strips Away Fundamental Rights, it is an Invalid Revision of the California Constitution

3. <Quoted above>

C. Legislative Responsibility Has Been Foreclosed by Proposition 8

[stopbush]

1. Good info, especially when one realizes that the decent thing to do

is to treat everybody equally, irrespective of laws on or not on the books (oh, wait, the equality thingy IS on the books).

[Gormy Cuss]

2. Thank you for posting this.

I was hoping to see a list of the lawmakers who signed on for this amicus brief --my assembly member is one of them, much to my surprise.

[AntiFascist]

3. The list, if I'm reading it correctly, is....

Senators: Don Perata, Darrell Steinberg, Karen Bass, Fabian Nunez, Ron Calderon, Gilbert Cedillo, Ellen Corbett, Christine Kehoe, Sheila Kuehl, Alan S. Lowenthal, Carole Migden, Alex Padilla, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Gloria Romero, Patricia Wiggins,

Assemblymembers: Jim Beall, Jr., Patty Berg, Julia Brownley, Anna M. Caballero, Charles Calderon, Joe Coto, Kevin de Leon, Mark DeSaulnier, Mike Eng, Noreen Evans, Mike Feuer, Filipe Fuentes, Loni Hancock, Mary Hayashi, Edward P. Hernandez, Jared Huffman, Dave Jones, Betty Karnette, Paul Krekorian, John Laird, Mark Leno, Lloyd E. Levine, Sally J. Lieber, Fiona Ma, Anthony J. Portantino, Lori Saldana, Jose Solorio, Sandre R. Swanson, and Lois Wolk.

:yourock:

[nichomachus]

4. In a non-legal sense

it threatens more than gays and lesbians, because if the theocrats -- Catholics/Mormons/Evangelicals -- are able to marginalize the gays and lesbians, they're coming after everyone else. Like all such oppressive movements, they start with those who are easiest to attack and then begin picking off other groups one by one, always aiming at the one next easiest to go after. When they start going after formerly "mainstream" groups, the die has been cast, and it's usually too late. Learn from history.

This is why it's so important to draw the line here and not given them an inch -- such as the ridiculous suggestion that gays give up the word "marriage" to end the controversy. It won't end it -- any more than allowing Hitler to occupy the Sudentenland stopped the Nazi drive to conquer Europe.

Gay marriage isn't really the issue. It's the issue-du-jour, but the larger goal is complete control over society and an imposition of theocratic rule in the US. Why in the word do you think Norman Ahmanson, the Christain Reconstructionist, is one of the big backers, along with the mother of Erik Prince, founder of the mercenary army Blackwater?

This is no fluke by the the Mormons and the Catholics. This is a very scary fascist coup in the making. Make no mistake about it. Everything you believe is at stake. If you think this is just about gays and lesbians using the word "marriage," you're sadly mistaken.

[Starry Messenger]

6. x1000

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. It's not like these groups are shy about voicing their desire for a theocracy.

[AntiFascist]

8. I totally agree...

Ahmanson stated that his goal, back in the 80s, was to establish religious law as the law of the land. I feel that much of the right-wing Christian neoconservative movement, as well as fraudulent use of election machinery, has evolved out of this (see Ahmanson's past ties to voting machine companies). Even certain members of the Federal Supreme Court may favor the preferences of their religion over the Constitution (Bush v Gore).

[Beartracks]

9. Makes sense...

> "...much of the right-wing Christian neoconservative movement, as well as fraudulent use of election machinery, has evolved out of this (see Ahmanson's past ties to voting machine companies)."

Makes sense, 'cause if you're convinced you're doing the Lord's work, then you'll be of the opinion that earthly laws don't apply to you (such as stealing votes, or bombing clinics - which is terrorism, btw).

[readmoreoften]

10. Note how the demand for a "religious" definition of marriage also invalidates non-religious marriage

Hence almost 20% of DUers voting in a poll that my parents haven't been married for the past 40 years because they didn't have a religious ceremony or a church blessing. 20% would said it was "civil union" not a marriage.

This line of argument (although most people use "marriage is religious" as more of a screed or a kneejerk reaction rather than an argument) would lead to two categories of relationship under the law and an even broader separate but equal: religious marriage and gay or non-religious civil unions. It would never happen, but that's where the argument goes.

[AntiFascist]

12. What about "civil marriage"? n/t

[Pithlet]

23. No! Marriage.

Don't give them an inch. Don't separate us, not even a tiny little bit.

[AntiFascist]

26. The idea is to separate church and state...

the Federal government would only have jurisdiction over civil marriages, which would be generic enough to include anything that an individual state wants to call a marriage, or not. If a particular state decides to include their civil unions under that umbrella, then that would be possible also. This would provide fairness regarding Federal tax filings and so forth, but it would still leave the decision up to the individual states (states' rights). The churches would still be free to acknowledge marriages inside of their church any way that they see fit, which has always been the case. If the Catholic church doesn't want to allow divorced people to get remarried, then they would not be entitled to a second Catholic marriage, even though they could still get a civil marriage. If the Unitarian church wants to recognize gay marriage, inside of a state that allows gay marriage, then the Federal government would recognize a civil marriage and a religious marriage would be recognized by their church. One big advantage to this would be that if a gay couple wants to get married and they live in state that does not allow it, they could get married in another state where it is legal and have a Federally recognized civil marriage even though they would have no rights under their own state's constitution.

In this situation, the Federal government is not forcing states to provide gay marriages, or to provide gay marriage rights within the scope of their state law. They are simply providing Federal (gay) civil marriages for those states that want to make the option available.

[Zhade]

29. That's still a violation of the full faith and credit clause.

NT!

[AntiFascist]

31. As far as Federal rights are concerned...

a state would have to acknowledge the Federal rights of a civil marriage. In other words, civilly married gay couples (who were married in another state) have the right to indicate that they are married on the Federal tax form, but on the state tax form there would be no such requirement if the state itself does not provide for it. That's why a civil marriage would not necessarilly be the same thing as a marriage recognized within a particular state.

[Pithlet]

25. I know. Even here on DU.

More than one DUer has accused me of dictating the religious beliefs of others by merely stating the fact that marriage is a legal contract. Yes, by merely stating that fact, I am dictating the religious beliefs of others. I guess the logic is that I'm denying them their religious connection to their marriage? I don't know how that could be. But, it's usually someone arguing that marriage is religious, of course. I've also had it implied that my marriage is less valid because I didn't have a religious ceremony. So I'm not surprised at that 20% poll result. I think that's why so many people think civil unions sound like a good idea. It's not religious, so then it wouldn't bother the religious people. Aside from the many other reasons this is wrong, it won't appease the bigots, because the true reason they want to exclude is hate. It's not really the the religion; they're just using the religion as an excuse and a tool to convince people. It won't stop them. I really hate the whole change marriage to civil unions and give marriage to the religious cop out. It's giving in to the bigots, and it won't stop the hate based exclusion.

[Zhade]

30. Not only that, but it would be a violation of the first amendment.

It would essentially result in an endorsement of a religious viewpoint ("marriage belongs to religion", which it DOES NOT) over a secular one.

[Zhade]

28. Wow. What a bunch of douchebags that 20% is.

And wrong to boot.

[madmadmad]

17. EXACTLY!

this is completely about enforcing their vision of biblical law- they absolutely believe that the bible (their version of it, anyway) trumps the constitution. they targeted california and poured all that money into it becuause it sends the biggest message- "see? if we can do it in the most liberal stte in the union, there is no stopping us!". this was not just a state referendum, not just about the gays- this was about rallying the troops NATIONALLY.

just step one.

[Zhade]

27. Deserving of its own thread.

Fantastic points.

[Starry Messenger]

5. Yes!

Times like this I wish I wasn't an atheist so I could pray hard.

[AntiFascist]

34. You can, just don't use the term "pray"...

telepathically meditate using a scientific physical force that nobody understands yet.

[Starry Messenger]

43. Well I'll be doing plenty of that! LOL.

Thank you for updating so much in this post. I wish it could be stickied somewhere. I come back and read it a lot.

[AntiFascist]

46. I'm keeping it kicked until there is a new development...

:kick:

[LeftHander]

7. WISCONSIN and other states already set precendents...

ELIMINATING numerous rights with ban on marriage AND anything like marriage.

THis prevents all sorts of rights straight couples are entitled.

WE DON'T exist.

GAY COUPLES SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST HERE IN WISCONSIN.

Except we do....

My partner and I are raising his niece and nephew...and I don't exist.

WE DON'T EXIST.

I can't put them on my health insurance plan. But I buy clothes, food, help with homework....drive them to school, take them to concerts etc...etc...etc..

IF MY PARTNER AND I WERE MARRIED I COULD DO THAT!!!!

[AntiFascist]

20. What is the process for modifying the Constitution in Wisconsin? n/t

[LeftHander]

44. Twice through the the legislature in seperate years....got on by one vote...

I see your point...

[hendo]

11. if sucks that they passed Prop 8

but can the Supreme Court of CA really overturn Prop 8?

[AntiFascist]

13. Yes, even Republican Governor Schwarzennegar is hopeful about this...

and encourages us not to give up on it. I think when legal experts understand the underlying principles outlined in the letter above, and other filings, then they tend to agree as well.

Prop. 8 went into effect because the law dictates that initiatives go into effect immediately after elections, but the CA Supreme Court has agreed to rule on whether it really is a valid amendment. They wouldn't be posting these filings on their website if they didn't take them seriously, and these are not "frivolous" as the Yes on 8 people contend.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. The GOP's Great Aryan Hope has been a bust.

The only thing he did was get Gray Davis and Cruz Bustamante out of the way so Enron (and the other GOP energy privateers) could screw Californians.

[Chulanowa]

15. If it runs counter to the state or U.S. Constitutions, yes

And it looks like it violates all sorts of spots in both.

[tavalon]

35. Absolutely!

And I will be shocked if they don't. They've overturned many props that were unconstitutional. Not only that, it's likely that the folks who drafted prop 8 knew ahead of time that it would be thrown out and did it anyway as a wedge issue and as a way to consolidate rethug power. It's not like that isn't totally within their MO. It has the added advantage of pitting blacks against gays, city folks against country folks, poor against rich - and by dividing people, you sap their strength.

Don't think for a second that we aren't being played for suckers.

[yardwork]

16. Some posters have been pointing this out all week.

If a minority group's rights can be taken away by an up-down majority vote, then who's rights are safe? Most of us fall into a minority category or two.

[AntiFascist]

18. Exactly, that's why the political efforts and demonstrations are extremely important...

even after Prop. 8 was voted into law. This letter was filed as an amicus brief with many members of the CA legislature cosigning. The CA Supreme Court knows to take these arguments seriously!

[yardwork]

19. Good.

[RedLetterRev]

21. Speaking of which

There's an action alert thread up. There are demos going on this Saturday. If you can attend, please do. My partner and I are attending in NC. Hope to see other DU'ers there.

[AntiFascist]

22. Yeah, my partner and I will be at the local Central Coast one...

(but I have to protest, this was obviously engineered so that East Coast gays could get up late) :)

[RedLetterRev]

39. We'll be in GSO

I've written the coordinator to put ourselves on the list in case the venue changes. Otherwise, we're showing up as advertised. It's an hour's drive so I'll have to get up before the crack of noon :rofl:

[jonnyblitz]

40. A few of us DUers are attending a protest at the NYC Mormon

Temple tonight. I will be commuting from Connecticut later today for this. :hi:

[AntiFascist]

47. That's fantastic! I hope there is a huge turnout for that....

and I've heard that Whoopie Goldberg will be there! :yourock:

[Pithlet]

24. Civil rights are on the line. I hope the CSC overturns it.

The argument is strong and sound. I fervently hope the CSC will do the right thing.

[TheWatcher]

32. First They Came.....

for the gays,
I remained silent;
I was not gay.

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


DO NOT BE SILENT. We are all in this together.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[and-justice-for-all]

36. So, am I correct in thinking that

a vote on an already established civil right should not have happened? The Constitution of the US does not allow for discrimination?

[AntiFascist]

37. Yes to the first question...

but the argument is being made on the basis of the state constitution, which has its own equal protection clause. The lawyers don't want to take this to the US Supreme Court.

Prop. 8 was drafted before the CA Marriage Ruling was made, so it did not even anticipate that gays and lesbians were considered a protected class with the fundamental right of marriage. To radically change the state constitution to remove these rights might have been possible if Prop. 8 were a Revision to the Constitution, but it did not go through that route before being put before the voters as a simple amendment which only changed the definition of marriage, thus it is argued that it is invalid.

[and-justice-for-all]

38. Sounds invalid to me...

you would think that all the money that the mormon and baptist bigots pumped into their hate campaign, they would have hired some lawyers that knew this before hand. Would they not know how the CA Constitution read and what route was best to make their hate stick?

It should go to the supreme court and get a what it deserves.

[AntiFascist]

41. Again, Prop 8 was drafted before the CA marriage ruling...

they never seem to have good lawyers though. I think their side made fools of themselves in the course of the marriage ruling.

[SweetieD]

42. Honestly I don't think racial minorities would be in danger because the Supreme Court and Federal gu

guidelines elaborate that racial minorities are a protected class. The feds and supreme court have not given this class protection to sexual orientation, although some states do offer this protection. I do not know the holdings of CA state law or the CA state constitution, so there may be some arguments there. But the law does not see race and sexual orientation as the same period. I know a lot of people bring up Loving, but read the case and prior/subsequent race based supreme court cases. There are different standards (some with a higher burden, some with less) depending on what class is involved in the statutory discrimination.

[AntiFascist]

45. That's not the point of the OP...

they were giving examples where, in the recent past, protected classes were denied marriage rights, and where this would now be considered wrong. They go on to point out that the law cannot anticipate what types of discrimination may get voted into the state constitution in the future, as simple amendments.

This is not a Federal issue, the CA Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the case. The recent CA marriage ruling makes it very clear that sexual orientation is a suspect class, which places it on the same playing field as racial minorities in the state of California. Federal guidelines play no role here.