Legal challenge to Prop 8

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2008 11:40 PM GMT
    "At least three lawsuits are are in the works to challenge Proposition 8, a proposed amendment to the California constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

    One of the suits is planned by City of San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera’s office. A second is by the three LGBT groups that won the historic California Supreme Court ruling that allowed same-sex marriage in the state. The third is by one of the couples who were married after the court ruling went into effect in May."

    ..."The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, a preliminary move to a suit.

    The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone, by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.

    The petition also says that Proposition 8 improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. The groups in the petition say that under the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first."

    http://www.365gay.com/news/sf-city-attorney-prepares-legal-challenge-to-prop-8/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 12:04 AM GMT
    Nice try, but it'll never work. They should have brought these issues up before the election. I oppose the amendment, but these tactics won't work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 1:31 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidNice try, but it'll never work. They should have brought these issues up before the election. I oppose the amendment, but these tactics won't work.


    I wouldnt be so sure. Remember, the court already ruled marriage to be legal. A court doesnt take kindly to being overruled. .... icon_lol.gif

    Besides where does it end. If the court allows a majority to take away the rights of one group of citizens, what prevents another majority from doing to another group of citizens. That's what the whole equal protection clause is about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 4:40 AM GMT
    Caslon7000 said
    Red_Vespa saidNice try, but it'll never work. They should have brought these issues up before the election. I oppose the amendment, but these tactics won't work.


    I wouldnt be so sure. Remember, the court already ruled marriage to be legal. A court doesnt take kindly to being overruled. .... icon_lol.gif

    Besides where does it end. If the court allows a majority to take away the rights of one group of citizens, what prevents another majority from doing to another group of citizens. That's what the whole equal protection clause is about.


    The California State Supreme Court's hands are tied. All it can do is obey what the state constitution says. It made a ruling on what the document said prior to this amendment. The amendment now changes that, and takes precedence. The Court has no power over the constitution; ordinary laws, yes, but the constitution is supreme.

    I understand there's talk of defeating the amendment on procedural grounds, but that's clutching at straws. Those issues should have been addressed many months ago.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:02 AM GMT
    If my legalese is correct, they couldn't have corrected it months ago. How can you file a suit against a ballot measure? In order to challenge it, it would have had to pass. There wasn't much room to argue it until it passed, but now, we can fight it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:13 AM GMT
    The California Supreme has twice struck down ballot measures to amend the state constitution; it's hands are not tied. Furthermore, in its May ruling they elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race & gender, which elevates the protection of homosexuals against discrimination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    The other issue for me is the folks who want to restrict our rights. I don't care if person says he or she disagrees with the concept of gay marriage on a religious basis, or whatever, but I really get upset with the notion that some would go so far to take that opinion, based upon religion, and make it law.

    Here 's a website that will let you see the contributors to both sides of the Proposition, in California (you'll note you don't see much money for the Yes on 8 campaign from CA, and that's because most of it came from out of state).

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-moneymap,0,2198220.htmlstory

    I have already found a few people I know on the "support" donation side. I'm kind of shocked and sickened by one of them. But the other thing is that they also have business affilitations for some of them.

    If it's a business that I am likely to want to frequent, then I will boycott it.

    Let's speak with our dollars and spend them elsewhere.

    John
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:26 AM GMT


    John, you're great! One of the best ways to vote is at the cash register!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:29 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    John, you're great! One of the best ways to vote is at the cash register!


    Thanks.

    I was shocked to find a guy, sort of a gym buddy, I know...donated $750 to the Yes on 8 campaign. This has altered my sense of him, and I doubt if I could evoke a friendly thought towards him the next time I see him.

    Unfortunately, looks like he is in a law firm, so there's not much I can do economically to "punish" them.
    icon_twisted.gif

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 06, 2008 5:31 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidNice try, but it'll never work. They should have brought these issues up before the election. I oppose the amendment, but these tactics won't work.



    I've heard of "Debby Downer" and, buddy, it must be your drag name.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:42 AM GMT
    Though I hate to be pessimistic, I'm with Red_Vespa on this one. This shit is not going to fly.

    Frankly, I'm not so sure I want it to fly. If you want anything to legitimize the arguments about "activist courts," this would be it. It would be an unprecedented, in my mind, reversal of the very notion of Constitutional Law. The implications for a the State Supreme Court overturning a passage of the State Constitution are enormous, and not in a good way. What does that say about the strength and viability of any other constitution in this country, that it's so weak that the rules which govern its changeability can be simply ignored?

    The defendants' arguments are weak, no matter how much I wish Prop. 8 hadn't passed. They're weak, and they're dangerous to the notion of Constitutional Law if the Supreme Court agrees with them. Let's face facts folks--we got our asses handed to us, and so we need to double down and try harder to keep on convincing our friends, families, and neighbors about our rights to an equal status as citizens. I don't like it--hell none of us likes it. But pissing into the wind with these lawsuits isn't going to get us anywhere, and may very well end up creating a backlash against us. I'd say it will be a fair bet that if these lawsuits pass, the call for a Federal Marriage Amendment will sound loud again. And perhaps rightly so, in this case, if state constitutions aren't being respected by the courts of their states.

    You want a lawsuit against a state constitution? Take it to the Supreme Court of the US. If you know that the SCOTUS is not even close to being with you, then bide your time. Just remember that this was never going to be an easy fight, nor a short one. As I keep saying, a courageous struggle takes time. The only way to shorten it is to do the groundwork of legitimate legal challenges (I don't view this one as being in any way legitimate), talking to people you know, and fighting in your legislatures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:51 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Red_Vespa saidNice try, but it'll never work. They should have brought these issues up before the election. I oppose the amendment, but these tactics won't work.



    I've heard of "Debby Downer" and, buddy, it must be your drag name.

    icon_lol.gif

    you funny curiousjock

    lol, I love debby downer
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 5:52 AM GMT
    Hmm... what's the problem? The situation in California might be a little different, but the Oregon courts overturn initiative amendments almost every election. Just arrange for a friendly judge to hear the first suit and order a stay, then if the government likes it, it usually sticks. And some of the pretexts for doing so are pretty damned thin.

    The common thread though, in the amendments that they overturn, is that they all try to limit government powers. An amendment that confirms government (or church) powers might not upset the bureaucracy enough for them to take action.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Nov 06, 2008 6:03 AM GMT
    Chewey_Delt saidThough I hate to be pessimistic, I'm with Red_Vespa on this one. This shit is not going to fly.



    Y'all need to think positive -- Sheeeesh! 20 years ago, no one would have believed an African-American could be elected President. It's happened, and this country (and the world) will probably be better for it, so just keep the faith and forge ahead.
  • Sirkit

    Posts: 182

    Nov 06, 2008 6:20 AM GMT
    Actually the court challenge probably will work, the amendment is in contradiction to already in place aspects of the California constitution. If the amendment were to be added the constitution would contradict it's self. the real annoying issue is that there will be no end to this BS as nothing restricts it from happening again in 4 years...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 6:38 AM GMT
    I'm dismayed by all the timorousness and cynicism that I've been hearing all day in regards to challenging the proposition. I woke up this morning with less civil rights than I had yesterday because of a proposition based on spurious claims and deceit. That is outrageous. I will not sit down nor abide by that.
  • pcsean28

    Posts: 161

    Nov 06, 2008 7:19 AM GMT
    Chewey_Delt saidThough I hate to be pessimistic, I'm with Red_Vespa on this one. This shit is not going to fly.

    Frankly, I'm not so sure I want it to fly. If you want anything to legitimize the arguments about "activist courts," this would be it. It would be an unprecedented, in my mind, reversal of the very notion of Constitutional Law. The implications for a the State Supreme Court overturning a passage of the State Constitution are enormous, and not in a good way. What does that say about the strength and viability of any other constitution in this country, that it's so weak that the rules which govern its changeability can be simply ignored?

    The defendants' arguments are weak, no matter how much I wish Prop. 8 hadn't passed. They're weak, and they're dangerous to the notion of Constitutional Law if the Supreme Court agrees with them. Let's face facts folks--we got our asses handed to us, and so we need to double down and try harder to keep on convincing our friends, families, and neighbors about our rights to an equal status as citizens. I don't like it--hell none of us likes it. But pissing into the wind with these lawsuits isn't going to get us anywhere, and may very well end up creating a backlash against us. I'd say it will be a fair bet that if these lawsuits pass, the call for a Federal Marriage Amendment will sound loud again. And perhaps rightly so, in this case, if state constitutions aren't being respected by the courts of their states.

    You want a lawsuit against a state constitution? Take it to the Supreme Court of the US. If you know that the SCOTUS is not even close to being with you, then bide your time. Just remember that this was never going to be an easy fight, nor a short one. As I keep saying, a courageous struggle takes time. The only way to shorten it is to do the groundwork of legitimate legal challenges (I don't view this one as being in any way legitimate), talking to people you know, and fighting in your legislatures.


    What you should be afraid of is how easy it was for a fundamentalist mob to revise a core protection of the constitution.

    When people complain about "activist courts" or "legislating from the bench" they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way a common law system works.

    You should have more faith in our constitution and that it is designed to protect against mob/majority rule. Only people who know what the fuck they're doing (legal experts, judges) should be making major decisions like this.

    Way to throw in the towel man... did you end up in the trash can at recess a lot? Sitting there covered in garbage thinking "well shoot, maybe I'll fight back next time!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 10:53 AM GMT
    Thanks for the link to the list, Fastprof. I don't think it's complete, though.

    Gonna be a fun day making calls to p8 supporters I found on the list whom I know.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 06, 2008 11:08 AM GMT
    The courts need to weigh whether the rights of gay people have been infriged upon and that this sets up a class of secondary citizenry

    Hiding behind what a ballot measure does or a legislature doesn't mean that it is constitutional or not
    were Jim Crowe Laws Constitutional?
    School segregation?
    Laws restricting blacks from marrying whites?
    These laws were passed by legislatures and upheld by a majority of an electorate
    But they still were struck down
    The courts are our only avenue for this to be resolved
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 11:15 AM GMT
    Think I'll buy some pink spray paint and decorate my local churches with triangles.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 11:45 AM GMT
    The courts are designed to redress inequity under the law, and eventually, to interpret the Constitution.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has already made important rulings on the initiative and referendum process, in California, in Jarvis vs. Reagan.

    That ruling upheld the right of the voters; despite the fact that the underlying precepts of California property tax law are flat-out ludicrous.

    This enormous inequity had already resulted in substantial damage to the interests of the state at the tax coffers (why Howard Jarvis framed his actions as a Tax Revolt) and resulted in ongoing financial problems and near bankruptcy for the State of California before it ever reached the Supreme Court.

    It seems to me that the approach of challenging the core of the initiative and referendum process is a silly idea that may well find a positive hearing in the California Supreme Court, and a deaf ear in the Federal Courts.

    The argument concerning the role of the courts in protecting minorities is progressive and, again, rather more likely to get a hearing at the state level than at the Federal level.

    It is very hard to judge what the Roberts Court will decide on anything. They are a ragtag lot.

    Until this court, or any future court, decides to hear a case on the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution as it applies to this issue, there seems to me to be little hope of a meaningful redress of this inequity in America.

    Last night I sent a letter to all of my friends around the world telling them what I considered cause for celebration in the victory of President-Elect Obama and cause for dispair in California in particular.

    This travesty is the latest misuse of the initiative and referendum process that has affected people whom I know and love in California. Who wouldn't welcome a redress of this insane incarnation of mob rule? Do we live in a Republic or on Lost Island? (please don't answer that)

    However, if you believe that justice for all means justice for everyone then without an examination of the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, the right to marry in California - even if ultimately somehow affirmed - falls short of equity by miles and miles.

    The one thing I have said many times on this site is that as an American citizen who is in a 10 year committed partnership with a German citizen, we aren't exactly welcome in the USA and we aren't exactly welcome in the European Union either.

    My partner and I "choose" where we live by where we actually are allowed to live under the laws of immigration, residency, and civil partnership. Sorry but that is really no choice at all.

    The inequity is Federal and until that inequity has been examined something good "may" happen for many people in some states - an I hope and pray that it does - but nothing will have happened to increase the freedom and security of everyone (including the dingbats and bigots who voted for Propostion Hate.)

    Last thing, if I hear some idiot railing about how this is all the fault of homophobic black people one more time I will vomit and post the lurid video on this site.

    Please look at the county maps before making such preposterous claims.

    People forget that the agricultural output of California (at least these were the statistics when I lived there) accounts for 25% of that of the United States. Calfiornia is, and always has been, the capital of Oklahoma and it was the same urban - suburban - rural divide that bigots have so often exploited that worked so swimmingly here.



    Terry
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 12:15 PM GMT
    "The inequity is Federal and until that inequity has been examined something good "may" happen for many people in some states - an I hope and pray that it does - but nothing will have happened to increase the freedom and security of everyone (including the dingbats and bigots who voted for Propostion Hate.)"

    Yep.

    It's gonna take a state by state change to get it to the federal level and likely that won't occur until all of the old guard is dead and buried. If there was anything I could do legally to speed up the process of their deaths and burials, I would. Until then, I hope to join in whatever disruptions to the peace are available to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 12:27 PM GMT
    An email I just sent to a rather successful auto dealer with whom I and the company for whom I work have done substantial business.

    We are spreading the word that Paul Miller II of the Paul Miller Auto Group of East Hanover, NJ donated $1,000.00 to support California's proposition 8. If this is not the case, then, Paul Miller II should contact the California attorney general to have his name removed from the list of donors who supported this homophobic bullshit. If this is the case, Paul Miller has lost a very good customer and the Paul Miller Auto Group can go fuck themselves.

    Steve Haugh
    Hopatcong, NJ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 3:19 PM GMT
    Government should be out of the business of marriage altogether.


    This would allow churches to define marriage however they wish.

    Individuals who are not religious can have secular ceremonies presided over by whomever they wish.

    All ceremonies would be symbolic only with no legal standing

    Legal contracts between whomever would be the norm whereby you can turn over power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

    Even Social Security would alleviate discrimination as you can leave your SS to whomever you wish.

    Companies who do not wish to recognize any marriage can offer a stipend whereby the employee can purchase insurance on his or her own

    There’s more to say about this issue but I am hoping this idea gets some “legs” at some point so we can respect everyone’s individual subjective view of life, all the while not infringing on civil liberties of the individual.

    While we all may not agree on HOW to live our individual lives, at least we can make sure that our Constitution doesn’t demand HOW we are supposed to live our lives.

    Freedom Baby! Freedom and choice!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2008 3:53 PM GMT
    This a quote taken from an e-mail received yesterday. It basically explains the logic behind their legal arguments. You can go to Lambda Legal to get the full text. Follow this link:

    http://www.lambdalegal.org/


    “Today, as the ballot counting for Proposition 8 in California continues, Lambda Legal, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, 1. filed a petition in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples urging the court to invalidate Prop 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Prop 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group — lesbian and gay Californians. Prop 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. Whatever the outcome of the election or the lawsuit, we and the California Attorney General agree that existing California marriages are valid, and Lambda Legal will work in the courts to protect these marriages if they are attacked.”



    I believe we can win...but is going to be a long battle. We may have suffered a temporary setback but it is not over yet! My marriage is still legal in California as they cannot make this amendment retroactive