Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify all same-sex marriages

[Master of Ossus]

What do you mean? If there is an equal protection clause written anywhere, the Prop 8 bullshit is invalid. There is already a written clause of equality before the law in the federal constitution (which supersedes a state constitution unless the state constitution grants more rights) and its amendments, so if these asstards want to make the argument that because 50% + 1 say gays should not marry and marriage is gender-restricted, they have the burden of proof that their cause does not in fact entail a substantial alteration of equal protection.

You are TOTALLY ignoring both the history of the 14th Amendment and the way it's been interpreted by the courts. Equal Protection does not operate in anything resembling the manner you assume.

There was an article posted earlier in this thread where the AG's reasoning is discussed in more detail than the most recent one, and that reasoning is legally sound within the parameters of the info given in that article. It's based on how a legal system and its underpinnings work. The latest article just contains a bunch of bluster, bullshit and distortion from the Prop 8 crowd who couldn't find their constitutional ass with a map, a compass, written instruction and an expert of constitutional law to guide them.

In debates about how the legal system and constitutional law work, the things written in the constitutional document in and of themselves are not automatically the ultimate final word, because two or more constitutional principles can conflict with each other in certain circumstances. In those cases (e.g. this one) the base principles and axioms the whole system was built on must be weighed and a decision made on that basis.

The Prop 8 crowd is bleating bullshit and they'd be the ones going to the HoS here.

Prove it. Explain how the AG's argument works within the context of the California constitution.

[Master of Ossus]

The article does a nice job of shotchanging the AG opinion because the "inalienable right" as the right to marry was indeed read into the Constitution during the effort to allow interacial marriages BUT the argument is two fold:

-If the right to marry is inalienable (as the Supreme Court has held) AND the Constitution requires equal protection of all citizens then any change to the constiution which alters the rights of a class of citizens with regards to that inalienable right should automatically fall under the "revision" clause of amending the state constitution.

But equal protection does not extend this far. Gay marriage is not protected by the clause to nearly the same degree that we protect other classes of people. Equal protection relates to laws that create a persistently favored class system across many generations, and reserves its most strident protections for people of different races, different national origins, etc.

In other words had the right which was denied not been inalienable then the equal protection and new clause would have been co-equal and there would beno other weight of law to suggest that this was anything more than an amendment basically specifying "equal protection except..." It is only because the right which is being addressed is considered so fundamental that changes the tenor of the amendment to be a "revision."

How is that different than the argument presented in the article everyone's responding to? It's still nonsense: a non-enumerated right or privilege has nowhere near the standing of an enumerated one, and court decisions can be overruled by new constitutional amendments. In fact, at least two federal constitutional amendments have been aimed at overriding judicial interpretations of other parts of the constitution. The AG will, doubtless, argue that these other amendments have not dealt with "fundamental" rights, but I don't know of any case in which that's succeeded (and it seems like he doesn't, either, if he didn't cite to anything).

[CmdrWilkens]

The article does a nice job of shotchanging the AG opinion because the "inalienable right" as the right to marry was indeed read into the Constitution during the effort to allow interacial marriages BUT the argument is two fold:

-If the right to marry is inalienable (as the Supreme Court has held) AND the Constitution requires equal protection of all citizens then any change to the constiution which alters the rights of a class of citizens with regards to that inalienable right should automatically fall under the "revision" clause of amending the state constitution.

But equal protection does not extend this far. Gay marriage is not protected by the clause to nearly the same degree that we protect other classes of people. Equal protection relates to laws that create a persistently favored class system across many generations, and reserves its most strident protections for people of different races, different national origins, etc.

In other words had the right which was denied not been inalienable then the equal protection and new clause would have been co-equal and there would beno other weight of law to suggest that this was anything more than an amendment basically specifying "equal protection except..." It is only because the right which is being addressed is considered so fundamental that changes the tenor of the amendment to be a "revision."

How is that different than the argument presented in the article everyone's responding to? It's still nonsense: a non-enumerated right or privilege has nowhere near the standing of an enumerated one, and court decisions can be overruled by new constitutional amendments. In fact, at least two federal constitutional amendments have been aimed at overriding judicial interpretations of other parts of the constitution. The AG will, doubtless, argue that these other amendments have not dealt with "fundamental" rights, but I don't know of any case in which that's succeeded (and it seems like he doesn't, either, if he didn't cite to anything).

The question isn't whether a non-enumerated right can be overturned by subsequent changes int eh constitution the question is about the characvter of the change. California distinguishies between an amendment which serves to update and clarify the existing constitution and a revision which serves to fundamentally alter it.

In this case the AG has determiend that since the Court has already ruled marriage to be a fundamental right. Since they had also ruled that homosexuals are a suspect class (in the ruling which authorized Gay Marriage in CA) and Prop 8 removed the right to marriage from that suspect class it qualifies Prop 8 as a "revision." In turn this means that it was not approved in a constitutionally correct manner (there was neither a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature nor a Constitutional Convention).

If Prop 8 had not been addressed at a fundamental right or at a suspect class then it would have been an amendment and validly passed but rather since it did both it shoudl have been considered a revision and subject to the higher level of scrutiny.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The question isn't whether a non-enumerated right can be overturned by subsequent changes int eh constitution the question is about the characvter of the change. California distinguishies between an amendment which serves to update and clarify the existing constitution and a revision which serves to fundamentally alter it.

In this case the AG has determiend that since the Court has already ruled marriage to be a fundamental right. Since they had also ruled that homosexuals are a suspect class (in the ruling which authorized Gay Marriage in CA) and Prop 8 removed the right to marriage from that suspect class it qualifies Prop 8 as a "revision." In turn this means that it was not approved in a constitutionally correct manner (there was neither a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature nor a Constitutional Convention).

If Prop 8 had not been addressed at a fundamental right or at a suspect class then it would have been an amendment and validly passed but rather since it did both it shoudl have been considered a revision and subject to the higher level of scrutiny.

While this is the argument presented by the gay rights groups, the Attorney General disagrees with this argument. Jerry Brown argued extensively in his brief that Proposition 8 isn't a major revision, which is quite confusing since he also argued that it unconstitutionally violated an "inalienable" right from same-sex couples. That sounds very much like a major revision to me but I admit I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination. The only thing encouraging about this whole matter is the precedence of Reitman v. Mulkey where the California Supreme Court ruled a constitutional amendment that was passed by initiative to be unconstitutional. Whether or not the enumeration of race vs. gender/sexual orientation rights would play a major role in the court's decision or not, I don't know. The AG's position is perplexing for the fact that he does not support the argument of the gay rights groups. Then again, it could merely be political posturing for future political endeavors should he decide to run for governor in 2010.

[CmdrWilkens]

I don't know the seocnd article in this thread (which you posted) suggests to me that Brown's position is a turnaround, that this is in fact a revision and thus the amendment process cannot be used as it extinguishes a "fundamental right."

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I don't know the seocnd article in this thread (which you posted) suggests to me that Brown's position is a turnaround, that this is in fact a revision and thus the amendment process cannot be used as it extinguishes a "fundamental right."

Hmm. That must be an earlier article. In this one, for example, it says:

They argued that the proposition should be rejected because it was a wholesale revision of the Constitution instead of a more limited amendment. A constitutional amendment can be passed by majority vote after being put on the ballot by a signature drive, but a revision can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

Brown then rejected the argument that Proposition 8 was a "revision," saying the court had previously upheld initiatives that made similarly broad changes in the Constitution.

Supporters of Proposition 8 agreed with him on that point. But they sharply denounced his chief argument.

I'm pretty sure I've seen articles and references elsewhere to his 111-page brief including a lengthy legal rebuttal to the gay rights groups' main argument that Prop 8 was a major revision. It appears the AG is arguing that amendments enacted through voter initiatives can be overturned if it took away civil rights and he uses Proposition 14 (1964) as an example of such an occurrence.

[Ender]

Hey, remember how these guys used the donation laws to "out" the anti prop 8 groups and organize boycotts?

Hypocrisy, they name is religion

Gay marriage foes want campaign contributions anonymous, citing 'harassment'
5:42 PM, January 8, 2009
Proponents of a ballot measure that banned same sex marriage filed a lawsuit in federal court this week seeking to overturn state campaign finance laws that require that names and personal information of donors to state political campaigns be made public.

They claimed that donors to Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California after one of the most heated campaigns in recent memory, have been the victim of threats and harassment because of their support for ending same-sex marriage was made public.

“This harassment is made possible because of California’s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents,” Ron Prentice, head of the Protect Marriage Coalition, said in a statement.

Since 1974, state law has required that donors who give more than $100 must have their names disclosed.

The law was intended to prevent money laundering and to provide disclosure of who is making contributions to political campaigns. It has withstood several previous legal challenges. Experts on the 1st Amendment experts said they did not believe the suit stood much of a chance of success.

“This trashes the 1st Amendment and it is a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate transparency as to the role of money in state election campaigns,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. The ACLU was a major opponent of Proposition 8.

-- Jessica Garrison

[The Yosemite Bear]

So upset that the double standard that they used against others was applied to them?

[Ender]

What hath technology wrought?

http://www.eightmaps.com/


Behold what you get when you combine donor lists and google maps. You can find out which of your neighbors gave, how much, and where they work!

$ 25,000 from a homemaker. That has to come from the kid's college fund. Promote ignorance twice over with one simple step!

[Alyrium Denryle]

What hath technology wrought?

http://www.eightmaps.com/


Behold what you get when you combine donor lists and google maps. You can find out which of your neighbors gave, how much, and where they work!

$ 25,000 from a homemaker. That has to come from the kid's college fund. Promote ignorance twice over with one simple step!

Good. My Grandmother is clean.

[General Zod]

What hath technology wrought?

http://www.eightmaps.com/


Behold what you get when you combine donor lists and google maps. You can find out which of your neighbors gave, how much, and where they work!

$ 25,000 from a homemaker. That has to come from the kid's college fund. Promote ignorance twice over with one simple step!

Good. My Grandmother is clean.

The amount of donations coming from people who were retired or students in the several hundred to thousands of dollars range is sickening.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What hath technology wrought?

http://www.eightmaps.com/


Behold what you get when you combine donor lists and google maps. You can find out which of your neighbors gave, how much, and where they work!

$ 25,000 from a homemaker. That has to come from the kid's college fund. Promote ignorance twice over with one simple step!

Good. My Grandmother is clean.

The amount of donations coming from people who were retired or students in the several hundred to thousands of dollars range is sickening.

I know. Which is why I checked out Grandma. That and she is a mormon version of the loony toons granny living in Sandy Utah...

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm amazed that the largest donation by individual address actually came out of Philly. Whatever the Templeton Foundation is they deseve to be laughed off the stage...and now reading their wiki entry it is of no suprise to me that they have awarded Billy freakin Graham, amongst others, a prize in the category of "trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity."

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm amazed that the largest donation by individual address actually came out of Philly. Whatever the Templeton Foundation is they deseve to be laughed off the stage...and now reading their wiki entry it is of no suprise to me that they have awarded Billy freakin Graham, amongst others, a prize in the category of "trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity."

Why am I not shocked? These are the people that award prizes to people that try to mathematically "prove" the existence of God.

[Ender]

Good. My Grandmother is clean.

Well, not necessarily. The list is only those who gave more than $100. If she threw in $50, her name wouldn't be on the public list, and thus not on the map.

[General Zod]

Good. My Grandmother is clean.

Well, not necessarily. The list is only those who gave more than $100. If she threw in $50, her name wouldn't be on the public list, and thus not on the map.

That map listed $25 and $50 donations as well as the larger ones.

[Ender]

Good. My Grandmother is clean.

Well, not necessarily. The list is only those who gave more than $100. If she threw in $50, her name wouldn't be on the public list, and thus not on the map.

That map listed $25 and $50 donations as well as the larger ones.

huh, wonder where those came from, I thought the law only released those greater than $100.

[CmdrWilkens]

That map listed $25 and $50 donations as well as the larger ones.

huh, wonder where those came from, I thought the law only released those greater than $100.

The law requires disclosure of donations over $100 but these could be voluntary discolsures.