?

Log in

No account? Create an account
This ain't over - Chronicles of a Hereditary Geek [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Darth Paradox

[ website | Pyrlogos - a fantasy webcomic ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

This ain't over [Nov. 5th, 2008|12:09 pm]
Darth Paradox
On the California Homophobia Amendment:

Apparently, California draws a distinction between a Constitutional Amendment (which Prop 8 was) and a Constitutional Revision. My understanding is that a CA Constitutional Revision requires passage from a Constitutional Convention, not a ballot initiative. If repealing exisitng rights from the CA Constitution legally requires a Constitutional Revision rather than a Constitutional Amendment, then, perhaps, Prop 8 can be found to not have properly changed the CA Constitution. Since the CA Court already found that the CA Constitution contains marriage equality rights, then Prop 8 would be unconstitutional.


Not an expert opinion, but it sounds like a pretty clear path to a challenge. I still hold out hope.
linkReply

Comments:
From: (Anonymous)
2008-11-05 11:28 pm (UTC)
i agree
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: idothattopeople
2008-11-05 11:56 pm (UTC)
As a Californian, I have been especially bummed out about how crappy my state can be sometimes. But this does give a glimmer of hope.

Oh, and excellent choice of user icon!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: scothen_krau
2008-11-06 12:08 am (UTC)
It's possible, yes - but they will try again. And if it happens in a presidential year, it will be a tough fight.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ext_119907
2008-11-06 02:52 am (UTC)
There are several paths to a challenge AFAIK:
- Refusing to concede until the apparently millions of uncounted votes (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gay-prop-marriage-2218061-california-measures) have been tallied
- A lawsuit (already filed (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867), I hear)
- The Governator can fail to sign it into law (there's good state precedent for that one)
- It can get signed into law and immediately challenged, tying up the law until the courts get ahold of it again (and hopefully throw it out)
- Or, worse comes to absolute worst, it can get signed into law, and overturned with a later ballot initiative once the 'no' faction gains the extra 3% of support. (For comparison's sake: the last marriage-ban proposal -- the one that was overturned this June -- was voted on 8 years ago with a 61% yes vote. Progress does happen; it's just a little slow, and hampered by confusing messages and out-of-state Mormon money and false, lying appeals to people's fears about their children's public education.)

Much MORE important, and I more people were talking about this:
- The law has not yet taken effect, which means gay couples can still get legally married in CA! and
- All couples married *before* the law does go into effect (assuming it does) get grandfathered in.

I hope some lucky couples can take advantage of the slowly-closing loophole -- even if it's a civil marriage with the big party-and-wedding shebang to follow years later, it's worth considering. (A coworker of mine is thinking seriously about it today, after swearing up and down only last week that he'd be the last one in the office at the altar!)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2008-11-07 09:39 pm (UTC)
As someone who opposes things like Prop 8, this kind of legal wrangling makes me sick.

I bet many of the same people who are arguing for the courts to overturn this and trying to find legal loopholes are the same ones who back in 2000 argued that the courts shouldn't be meddling in elections and votes by the people, and started doing the "Selected, not Elected" chants about Bush. The intellectual dishonesty is just so stark and shocking...

Either the courts can clarify rulings around votes by the people, or they can't. Make up your darn mind. If there were ever a reason to be ashamed of the voters in the country, it's this one. Holding people to different standards based on if you agree with them or not.

Personally, I think that the government should get completely and utterly 100% out of the business of regulating, endorsing, or otherwise sanctioning marriage.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: darthparadox
2008-11-07 09:55 pm (UTC)
I completely agree with your last point.

As far as the legal wrangling goes, it may have been a rather obscure way of stating the point, but what it comes down to is that removal of rights (and other alterations, as opposed to additions, to the constitution) should not be able to pass on a simple majority vote, but rather require a two-thirds vote or a convention held under specific rules.

I think that's a pretty important and valid point. The founders understood that there were certain things that should not be left up to a simple majority vote. That's why the Constitution and its amendment process exists in the first place.

As far as the 2000 election goes, there were a lot of shady things about it, but I don't think the Supreme Court's decision to ratify Florida's electoral vote decision was among them. At that point, the process was working exactly as designed, even though I think a lot of the decisions leading up to it in Florida were bad ones.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kazriko
2008-11-07 10:41 pm (UTC)
Nod. We're most likely in agreement then, I wasn't opposed to the supreme court upholding it either.

I am finding it awfully shocking that a state that went 61-38 for Obama would vote 52% to support Prop 8 though. Those two votes seem entirely contradictory.

Well, at least if you're looking at it from a left vs. right scale. If you're looking at a big government vs. little government scale, they're entirely consistent. 97% or so voted for a big government president, while 52% voted for big government intervention in people's lives.

(Part of my platform to eliminate government sanctioning of marriage includes eliminating government income taxes, moving to a FairTax system or no taxes at all. That gets rid of the reason to have the government keep track of marriage for tax reasons. It also includes just allowing people to provide a list of those who are allowed to inherit their stuff, visit them in the hospital, etc. Eliminating death taxes would allow the "spouse" survivorship without taxation and without government sanctioned marriage, etc.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)