ACLU is challenging Prop 8

[Corylea]

"SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. 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. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to 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."

Read more here: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

 

[rgraham666]

Bueno.

 

[Guest]

"The constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens."

Wendell Willkie

 

[only_more_so]

"SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. 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. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to 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."

Read more here: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

So the ACLU is trying to undermine the decision of the voters of California? By saying it's unconstitutional to change the constitution?

They are asking a judge to overturn the decision of the people, a decision that the people were forced to vote on because a previous set of judges overturned the decision of the people.

 

[Safe_Bet]

So the ACLU is trying to undermine the decision of the voters of California? By saying it's unconstitutional to change the constitution?

They are asking a judge to overturn the decision of the people, a decision that the people were forced to vote on because a previous set of judges overturned the decision of the people.

Bet your sweet ass! The constitution applies to all of us if you fundy, right wing mother fuckers like it or not!

 

[Corylea]

So the ACLU is trying to undermine the decision of the voters of California? By saying it's unconstitutional to change the constitution?

They are asking a judge to overturn the decision of the people, a decision that the people were forced to vote on because a previous set of judges overturned the decision of the people.

They're saying it's unconstitutional to change the constitution by a simple majority vote. Which it is -- if you'd actually clicked on the link, you'd know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So the ACLU is trying to undermine the decision of the voters of California? By saying it's unconstitutional to change the constitution?

They are asking a judge to overturn the decision of the people, a decision that the people were forced to vote on because a previous set of judges overturned the decision of the people.

a 3% split is not a popular mandate.
Constitutions should not be that easy to amend. If they are, I plan on bringing a constitutional amendment that says you have to pass an IQ test in order to vote. All I need is ONE MORE VOTE than not, and bam-- you are shit out of luck.

 

[3113]

They are asking a judge to overturn the decision of the people, a decision that the people were forced to vote on because a previous set of judges overturned the decision of the people.

Gays and lesbians aren't people?

It was once the decision of the majority, of the people, to keep blacks segregated. They couldn't go into certain bathrooms, eat at certain restaurants, stay at certain hotels, go to certain schools, live in certain neighborhoods or, yes, marry anyone not of their own race. Just because the "people" decided this doesn't mean it was right. Judges overturned it. And when the people, forced to vote, tried to maintain such laws, the judges overturned them again.

Come to that, it was once the decision of the majority of the people that Jews be forced to live in ghettos, and then be shipped to concentration camps. It was the will of the people to let them be murdered.

Wrong laws are wrong laws even if they are popular and the will of the "people." This is one of the reasons we have courts and judges--to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. But there are plenty of places where there are no judges to protect you from tyrannical laws passed by the majority. Would you really rather live in such a place?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am not sure if you are capable of comprehension but here's the gist of it;

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

(big enough? )

 

[only_more_so]

Bet your sweet ass! The constitution applies to all of us if you fundy, right wing mother fuckers like it or not!

That was a bit more belligerant than my question deserved. I personally don't care which way the ruling goes, my beef is with the ACLU which consistently tries to use the judicial system to undermine the legislative system and the voice of the people. They substitute their morality for the morality of the people of the country.

They're saying it's unconstitutional to change the constitution by a simple majority vote. Which it is -- if you'd actually clicked on the link, you'd know.

Actually, the link says it is constitutional to change the constitution by a simple majority vote. The question seems to be whether it is a substantive change or not, something I didn't grasp on my initial read through.

 

[3113]

a 3% split is not a popular mandate.
Constitutions should not be that easy to amend. If they are, I plan on bringing a constitutional amendment that says you have to pass an IQ test in order to vote. All I need is ONE MORE VOTE than not, and bam-- you are shit out of luck.

I'd vote for that! Let's get it on the ballot. Only_more_so has to pass an I.Q. test to vote. I'm sure it'll pass. Do you think he'll reject the ACLU's offer to help him fight it?

 

[fieryjen]

That was a bit more belligerant than my question deserved. I personally don't care which way the ruling goes, my beef is with the ACLU which consistently tries to use the judicial system to undermine the legislative system and the voice of the people. They substitute their morality for the morality of the people of the country.



Actually, the link says it is constitutional to change the constitution by a simple majority vote. The question seems to be whether it is a substantive change or not, something I didn't grasp on my initial read through.

You don't seem to understand that they're not undermining anything. Checking the system and overturning decisions that should not have been made is what certain parts of the system are there for. If necessary, over and over again. Just because they are made over and over again does not mean the last one is any more constitutional than the first.

 

[rgraham666]

Prop 8 creates a 'some animals are more equal than others' situation.

And that's just wrong.

 

[DeeZire]

They substitute their morality for the morality of the people of the country.

By your definition, we should bring back slavery, since it was approved of by the majority back in the day.

 

[DirktheKnife]

The ACLU went to bat for Larry Craig - so its not a left/right thing. They ask the tough questions that need to be answered.

This isn't over. The vast majority of those under 40 support equal rights for everyone - it's only a matter of time until this reaches Federal level and gets added to the constitution.

The people that voted for this measure should be ashamed, and the churches that pushed this digusting agenda should be stripped of their tax exempt status.

 

[Safe_Bet]

That was a bit more belligerant than my question deserved. I personally don't care which way the ruling goes, my beef is with the ACLU which consistently tries to use the judicial system to undermine the legislative system and the voice of the people. They substitute their morality for the morality of the people of the country.
.

It is "non-caring" people just like you that want to take my rights away and break up my marriage.

BTW, just what the hell do you think the purpose of the judicial system is? Are you familiar with the concepts of checks and balances?

 

[R. Richard]

Prop 8 creates a 'some animals are more equal than others' situation.

And that's just wrong.

Then you don't believe that Muslims should have the right to practice their religion?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Then you don't believe that Muslims should have the right to practice their religion?

Um. How do you get that?

 

[Kev H]

Someone clue me in if I'm missing info here, but why didn't common sense prevail among enough people so that the proposition included specific safeguards for gay rights? In other words, I believe the biggest beef against gay marriage has to do with the silly term, marriage. Why then wouldn't they guarantee marriage-related rights like the hospital visits to any couples under cohabitation? Is this a foolish oversight or am I missing something here? And if those rights were guaranteed, would the gay community insist on having specific legal documentation saying they are married in the eyes of the state?

Not trying to stir shit, but honestly curious--it seems an obvious compromise, so I must be missing something.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Someone clue me in if I'm missing info here, but why didn't common sense prevail among enough people so that the proposition included specific safeguards for gay rights? In other words, I believe the biggest beef against gay marriage has to do with the silly term, marriage. Why then wouldn't they guarantee marriage-related rights like the hospital visits to any couples under cohabitation? Is this a foolish oversight or am I missing something here? And if those rights were guaranteed, would the gay community insist on having specific legal documentation saying they are married in the eyes of the state?

Not trying to stir shit, but honestly curious--it seems an obvious compromise, so I must be missing something.

What you are proposing is "separate, but equal", also know as Jim Crow laws. It's just like saying "We gave them coloreds their own damn drinking fountain why do they gotta use ours!"

 

[fieryjen]

Edited because SB's answer was so much better.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Someone clue me in if I'm missing info here, but why didn't common sense prevail among enough people so that the proposition included specific safeguards for gay rights? ...
Not trying to stir shit, but honestly curious--it seems an obvious compromise, so I must be missing something.

Proposition, 8 is one hundred percent a bigoted proposition, and has not one single thing to do with fairness or equality.

My boss was wondering about this as well--"Why," he wondered, "Do gays insist on the word 'Marriage?' They could call it 'Jabberwocky,' and bypass that entire pushbutton."
I said; "In your marriage would you have been proud to introduce your beloved jabberwocky to your parents, your college, your friends-- or was there something so important to you, for no good reason, about the word 'Spouse, Wife, husband,' that made 'jabberwocky' unthinkable by comparison?"

He had to admit the truth of that.

 

[R. Richard]

Um. How do you get that?

Under Sharia law, a Muslim man may have up to four wives. a Muslim woman may not have up to four husbands.

Under Sharia law, a non-Muslim man (dhimmi) must pay a special tax (jizya) not paid by Muslims.

Pubs and clubs that sell alcohol are prohibited under Sharia law. [However, the use of kif (hashish) is not prohibited.]

There are numerous other examples. Read your Q'ran.

 

[Corylea]

Read your Q'ran.

No, thanks. The Bible was bad enough.

 

[Kev H]

What you are proposing is "separate, but equal", also know as Jim Crow laws. It's just like saying "We gave them coloreds their own damn drinking fountain why do they gotta use ours!"

I know this probably isn't a safe discussion with you right now, so let me stop here before continuing and say how much I sympathize with you and yours, and how much I wish the outcome had been different. I truly mean that, and I also am confident the legal challenge will overturn it.

Perhaps part of a rational discussion with a sympathizer (versus the uncaring) will help blow off steam and actually make you feel better about the future. I hope so.

That said, I don't see a compromise as "separate, but equal" (and I am well aware of Jom Crow laws); can you walk me through your rationalization process, please? If you have all the benefits of marriage, why in heck would you want the marriage? Is it an integral part of playing house? Is it an emotional tie that's irreplaceable somehow? Note that I have always rejected marriage for myself while understanding that some treasure it for various reasons (from what I've seen it's mostly cultural brainwashing and religious dogma). It is, without those added civil rights, simply a religious "institution" as they call it (and why the hell would you want to live in an institution, right? heh)--so I can see traditionally narrow-minded, religious people feeling offended that their "sacred institution of marriage" is being used for a purpose other than what it was intended to be (by the bible, not the state). That's why I wondered if the battle was being fought in the wrong place--over a name rather than the civil protections. See my point?