Quick Hit: More opposition papers filed against Prop 8
Local governments, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, filed their latest opposition papers to Proposition 8, describing the voter-approved initiative as a "dark moment'' in California history. The brief is an attempt to refute the legal arguments of Proposition 8 backers as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from government officials, civil rights groups and same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry
"Dark moment" would be an understatement. But I must say, I am impressed with Jerry Brown on this issue.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: More opposition papers filed against Prop 8.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11244
Also, I was reading that Jerry Brown's legal argument takes a different approach than many of the other lawsuits filed, which mainly focus on whether or not proposition 8 is an amendment or a revision to the constitution. (Note: the reason this is important because is because if prop 8 is determined to be a revision, it would have needed to have been approved by the legislature in order to pass - thus if considered a revision it would be invalid)
However, Brown's lawsuit focuses on the argument that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable, and cannot be put up for a popular vote and cannot be applied to invalidate existing marriages. It's essentially the idea that rights of a minority should not be subject to the tyranny of a majority vote...as well as the idea that "inalienable rights" truly are inalienable (as they should be, hence the term inalienable)
This is an issue I struggle with. While I support gay marriage, I also support democracy & the rule of law. This is a Constitutional amendment afterall. Amendment referendums cannot be lightly overturned. Even taking Brown's argument at face value, then WHO gets to decide WHICH rights are inalienable? Afterall the Constitution is the enumerator of inalienable rights & now the Constitution has been re-written by the people to exlude homosexual marriage.
And the logic is flawed I think. If rights can be given people (as the 13th & 14th Amendments to the US Constitution did) then can they not be taken away?
Constitutions do not & cannot prevent populations from doing truly heinous things. In fact they can justify it. Afterall our US Consitution codified blacks as just "three-fifths" of a person & allowed slavery among other injustices & inhumanities.
I think that the better solution for all concerned would be a new statewide vote to repeal Prop 8. I believe that this time gay marriage supporters would be able to sway the majority.
Wanting to respect everyone's rights equally and respecting the constitution are not mutually exclusive. To most people there is something deeply disturbing about this particular bill - including other minority groups are writing letters of support for the repeal of prop 8.
You seem to be misunderstanding what the term "inalienable rights" mean - each person has certain "inalienable rights" - rights which can not be taken away by any government or law because they are not given by any government or law - they are inherent. Thus the constitution simply protects these rights. Thus it is illogical to argue that a simple majority vote can take away a person's inalienable rights.
What is especially disturbing about this bill, and what minority groups are so concerned about, is the precedence that this bill sets in the ability for a simple majority vote to take away previously enjoyed and protected rights from groups of people. For example, a majority of voters could decide to take away a particular group's right to vote. Or a the right for one group of people to be free from religious persecution. And just to further illustrate the unfairness of prop. 8, imagine if a majority of voters decided to pass a law that banned people, say, with red hair from having children. Do you think that would be "constitutional" simply because voters approved it? Of course laws like these, that try to take away inalienable rights should not be constitutional. Again, because the constitution protects our inalienable rights - they cannot be taken away by any law, government, group or people or vote. So why should it be any different for gay and lesbian Americans?