Schwarzenegger: Proposition 8 may violate U.S. Constitution

[stopbush]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today told a federal court in San Francisco that the state does not dispute that Proposition 8 may violate the federal Constitution and called for quick action to resolve the legality of the ant-gay measure law.

“Plaintiffs’ complaint presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination," the governor said in a written response to a federal challenge of the anti-gay marriage ballot measure.

"In a constitutional democracy, it is the role of the courts to determine and resolve such questions. … The administration encourages the court to resolve the merits of this action expeditiously.”

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has scheduled a July 2 hearing on arguments whether Proposition 8 should be blocked pending a trial on its constitutionality.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/schwarzenegger-proposition-8-may-violate-constitution.html

[anigbrowl]

1. K&R

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Good for him. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Now, if he weren't such an idiot in fiscal matters...

[truedelphi]

3. I blame Schwarzenegger a lot for many things

But the fiscal mess in California is often such as we see now (Though this time, much worse.)

California routinely fails to deliver a budget. Routinely squanders surplus monies in the State Treasury when Politicians stir up the populace on issues with which to spend
money - always telling the citizens that there is no need to save because the boom times will
continue forever.

And the corruption is massive, with both parties feeding at the trough. Even in tough times, legislators are buying themselves teak desks and going on travel junkets etc.

It's been this way for decades.

[Kerrytravelers]

4. I grew up in the Bay Area and live in LA now. I know exactly what you're talking about.

We really need to overturn that 2/3 majority rule. That has ruined the state, from my understanding.

[truedelphi]

7. 2/3 majority rule really sucks. n/t

[slutticus]

9. Yip. And now they want even more money. No thanks.

[bridgit]

5. Of course it does, it has to but not only that it insults The Constitution and willfully so...

as the disruptive, theocratic insertion between various inalienable rights and calls to be free and pursue happiness that it was intended to be

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Um...

Creating an outrage and then getting it heard in higher and higher courts can sometimes be how Republicans attempt to install their agenda through the legal system...they've tried it with creationism, then whatever the hell they reframed it as, all through back-handed techniques. They're getting sleazier and sleazier.

I'm perfectly happy to be wrong about this, however. It's just that Ahnold is NOT the state's friend, by any imaginable amount. When he backs something...

[stopbush]

10. I don't like Ah-nold, but I have heard that he is worried about leaving

a positive legacy in the state, something that he has very little chance of doing at this point. He wants to do something on gay marriage as he supports it. He has also changed his tune on universal health care, saying that he would sign such a bill for CA whereas he vetoed it in the past. He also wants to increase funding for the arts, but realizes that anything proposed in these economic times is due to fail (the recent bill to that effect was pulled in committee and will be offered next January as a two-year proposal). I think he's given up on solving the state budget problems and process and is looking to ride it out while taking potshots at the legislature.

His stance on gay marriage is a gift horse that we need not look in the mouth. It costs him nothing to support an action that looks headed to the SCOTUS and that is trending toward being ruled unconstitutional at the federal level.

BTW - I heard the above directly from a close relative of Ah-nold who is on the left side of the Shriver/Schwarzenegger divide. Can't give you anymore details than that.

[Cleita]

11. He really has no power anymore. No one in his own party listens to him

especially the Christo-fascists he should be bargaining with or even blackmailing if he has to in order to get this done, and I don't think he can take credit for what the Supreme Court might rule.

[Toasterlad]

13. He's Always Said He Thought the Courts Should Decide It.

He's one of those Republicans that doesn't give a shit about the social issues that the GOP is against; he pays lip-service to the party line because he doesn't want to alienate the religious nutjobs, but I think he's totally fine with same-sex marriage. Moreso than Obama is, certainly.

[AntiFascist]

8. K&R, just to be clear on the issue....

The CA Supreme Court previously ruled that marriage is a fundamental right in the CA Marriage Ruling. Prop 8 attempts to carve out a narrow exception to Equal Protection, denying this right to gays and lesbians. They allowed this to happen because past initiatives have been ruled to allow fundamental rights to be taken away from other groups...namely, the group of criminal citizens!

[crimsonblue]

14. In that case....

the best method of argument in federal court would be to argue that the justification for the denial of rights is unconstitutional. To classify law-abiding LGBT citizens in the same category as convicted criminals serves to deny these citizens equal rights in California. I do not see this legal action as being very effective, because a federal overturning of Prop 8 would serve to invalidate state's Constitutions as the final arbiter of intra-state law. I just do not see any way to get the necessary 5 SC justices to vote in favor of overturning Prop 8.

[AntiFascist]

15. It all boils down to upholding Equal Protection, doesn't it?

I think it was much more difficult for the CASC to cite case law for upholding the state's version of the equal protection clause, but my understanding is that there may be much greater precedent for this in Federal court with respect to the 14th Amendment.

[Initech]

12. Prop 8 needs to be overturned NOW!

There was so much sketchiness and propaganda surrounding that proposition (like the funding and defendmarriage.org) that it wasn't even funny. We need to make the fundies pay for this.