It's now about equal protection, not gay marriageBy Steven T. Jones
The California Supreme Court's decision to hear legal challenges to Proposition 8 moves the debate about same-sex marriage toward a more basic legal question: Can a majority vote to take away the constitutional rights of a minority? "The passage of Prop. 8 has pushed California to the brink of a constitutional crisis," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office began preparing this legal challenge even before election day, just said at a hastily called news conference, where he appeared with his deputy Terry Stewart and Santa Clara County Attorney Anne Ravel.
"Equal protection is what separates constitutional democracy from mob rule tyranny," Herrera said, noting that the measure "trounced upon the independence of our judicial branch." For that reason, he expects the issues and arguments that San Francisco and its 12 co-plaintiffs (and counting) make to be very different than those his office argued for same-sex marriage. Briefs will be filed by Jan. 5 and oral arguments could come as early as March.
"They're going to decide a question that goes to the very foundation of our democracy," Ravel said. "A majority of voters can't undercut the court's role in protecting the rights of minorities."
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
My response to this post: This court decision will be remembered through the ages.
My response to the taxi article in this week's paper: I don't trust the MTA any further than I can throw it.
My response to the Harvey Milk articles: I wonder what San Francisco would be like today if district elections had never been repealed?
Posted by expatriate | November 19, 2008 04:16 PM
The question about prop 8 and gay marriage is deeper than " equal rights" which I hope all of us are for and support. Most of the people that I have spoken with about prop 8 (those voting for it and I realize that this is a small percentage of those voting) do not believe that gay people should be discrimated against and most believe that they should have "some" form of legal "wedding" (made that up for purposes of this arguement). The feeling seems to be based at an emotional level, the word "marriage" holds a particular meaning to them and they want it reserved for men and women. I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage, but at this time I feel that a compromise should be reached, giving gay people full marital rights but caling it something else. I realize this is less than what gay people want and may be more than what hetrosexual people want but it may be a compromise that allows both sides to "save face" and for gay people to gain the rights they deserve.
Posted by BILL JOHNSON | November 24, 2008 06:39 AM
Lets dispel this myth once and for all. Equal Protection is not the issue here for a couple of reasons.
1. The equal protection clause is not universally applied like freedom of speech. If anything it limits the equal rights of citizens by designating suspect classes that require strict scrutiny of the equal protection to a designated group. Only those groups determined as suspect classes receive the highest scrutiny and those are race, religion and nationality. Why? because it is not feassible to guarantee the equal protection of every maligned group in the USA. Fat people can be discriminated against based on their weight, that is legal. Only when they are facing discrimination when voting or any other protected right which has been expanded to include all citizens, do they envoke the protection of the 14th ammendment.
Sexual Orientation is not a suspect class and has never achieved that status but the ciurts are arbitrarily granting them these rights based on political pressure not legal dogma. What this will do is grant an undeserving group equal protection when they havent proven they are worthy. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.
2. Where are they damaged? If they are receiving the rights of regular couples as recipients of civil unions then the issue boils down to the use of a word, "marriage". This word does not in and of itself create legal rights. So long as Gays get all the same rights as a married couple does, then they dont need the word marriage. The word originated in religion. The state adopted it but did not create the word or the institution. Therefore let the word alone and lets not confuse the public with the emotional arguments of equal rights when the sexual orientation class doesnt deserve them. Besides once that designation is legally allowed to receive equal protection whats to stop all other sexual orientations, including sexual deviates who claim their sexual orientation from being prohibited from exercizing their legal right to practice such because it has been legalized under such a overbroad designation without limits as to its practical application?
Posted by Falaniko | June 4, 2009 07:54 PM
Lets dispel this myth once and for all. Equal Protection is not the issue here for a couple of reasons.
1. The equal protection clause is not universally applied like freedom of speech. If anything it limits the equal rights of citizens by designating suspect classes that require strict scrutiny of the equal protection to a designated group. Only those groups determined as suspect classes receive the highest scrutiny and those are race, religion and nationality. Why? because it is not feassible to guarantee the equal protection of every maligned group in the USA. Fat people can be discriminated against based on their weight, that is legal. Only when they are facing discrimination when voting or any other protected right which has been expanded to include all citizens, do they envoke the protection of the 14th ammendment.
Sexual Orientation is not a suspect class and has never achieved that status but the ciurts are arbitrarily granting them these rights based on political pressure not legal dogma. What this will do is grant an undeserving group equal protection when they havent proven they are worthy. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.
2. Where are they damaged? If they are receiving the rights of regular couples as recipients of civil unions then the issue boils down to the use of a word, "marriage". This word does not in and of itself create legal rights. So long as Gays get all the same rights as a married couple does, then they dont need the word marriage. The word originated in religion. The state adopted it but did not create the word or the institution. Therefore let the word alone and lets not confuse the public with the emotional arguments of equal rights when the sexual orientation class doesnt deserve them. Besides once that designation is legally allowed to receive equal protection whats to stop all other sexual orientations, including sexual deviates who claim their sexual orientation from being prohibited from exercizing their legal right to practice such because it has been legalized under such a overbroad designation without limits as to its practical application?
Posted by Falaniko | June 4, 2009 07:54 PM