{"id":6924,"date":"2009-03-03T11:54:14","date_gmt":"2009-03-03T19:14:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=6924"},"modified":"2009-03-03T11:54:14","modified_gmt":"2009-03-03T19:14:02","slug":"california-high-court-hears-arguments-on-prop-8-this-thursday","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=6924","title":{"rendered":"California High Court Hears Arguments On Prop 8 This Thursday"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Link<\/a> has a good point:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision (when it comes — under court rules the justices have 90 days after oral argument to issue an opinion) will not be a ruling in favor of or against either side.<\/p>\n

The court will decide some very important constitutional issues. […] But the answers to these questions will not amount to a judgment by the court on the moral, legal or social appropriateness of same-sex marriage, or on the wisdom of the majority who passed Prop. 8.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This “backgrounder<\/a>” at the LA Times is a good guide to the main issues the Court will <\/em>be deciding.<\/p>\n

Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that although some changes to the Constitution can be made by a simple majority of Californians, others cannot.<\/p>\n

They note that there is a difference between an “amendment” of the Constitution, which can be approved by a majority of voters, and a more substantive “revision” of the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before it can get on the ballot.<\/p>\n

Proposition 8 was passed as an amendment. But, opponents say, it should’ve been passed as a revision. This may sound like a dry technical issue, one of process rather than substance. But don’t be fooled: It’s very much about substance.<\/p>\n

Why should it have been a revision? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Because it’s so sweeping. Opponents argue that the freedom of gay people to marry whom they want is a fundamental right — protected under the California Constitution’s guarantees of liberty, privacy and equal protection. These rights can’t be denied to a vulnerable minority just because 50.1% of California voters get it into their heads to do so. If anything should require the tougher standards of a “revision,” it’s this.<\/p>\n

Gays are considered a “suspect class” (meaning that state courts already have identified them as a group that has been historically discriminated against), and singling out a suspect class to deprive it of a fundamental right is especially questionable. It requires, at the very least, the kind of extra “formality, discussion and deliberation” that the Supreme Court has said in past decisions is available through the revision process.<\/p>\n

We live, after all, in a constitutional democracy, not a pure democracy. That means, as every schoolchild is taught, that there are checks and balances on the majority’s power over the rights of minorities.<\/p>\n

How do the pro-Prop. 8 forces respond? <\/strong><\/p>\n

They say it’s all a lot of hooey: Prop. 8 isn’t a revision. It only adds 14 words to the document, for goodness’ sake! As a brief from the American Center for Law & Justice noted, the amendment involves no redistribution of authority among the branches of state government, no “wholesale diversion from the stated original purpose of the Constitution.” Plenty of other amendments have required change at least as sweeping as Prop. 8, they say, and the court has rarely demurred.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think the anti-Prop 8 forces have the stronger argument, but I could easily imagine the Court deciding either way.<\/p>\n

Whatever the decision is, it most likely can’t be appealed to the US Supreme Court, since all the issues here come down to what the California constitution says. (I’m sure the lawyers who comment here will let me know in comments if I’m mistaken about that.) And whatever the decision is, the fight for equal rights will keep on going afterward.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

David Link has a good point: The Supreme Court\u2019s decision (when it comes — under court rules the justices have 90 days after oral argument to issue an opinion) will not be a ruling in favor of or against either … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-same-sex-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6924"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6924\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}