Proposition 8 upheld

[solarbird]

California's Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8, in its entirety, but also ruled that previously-conducted marriages are grandfathered in. The fundamentalists wanted the pre-8 marriage licenses revoked, but didn't get that, at least.

The ruling is essentially as expected; the argument that the changes were broad enough to the state constitution to constitute a revision were interesting, but to me inadequately persuasive, in part because the initiative targeted a small minority - the relationship to most of the state between the government and the citizens remained unchanged. Accordingly, I'm unsurprised. I haven't read the ruling yet, so I have no idea what the judges actually thought; this has been my own thinking on the matter, and I am unversed in California constitutional law.

However, with this initiative being upheld, minority groups of all sort - particularly small ones - should take away this: it's perfectly okay for the majority to fuck you up with one popular vote. If you think you're safe, if you think that can't happen to your little pocket of reality, wake the fuck up, because it can.

eta: link to story.

eta2: I was right; from the decision, in regards to the state's equal protection clause:

Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights... Taking into consideration the actual limited effect of Proposition 8 upon the preexisting state constitutional right of privacy and due process and upon the guarantee of equal protection of the laws, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. ...

Neither the language of the relevant constitutional provisions, nor our past cases, support the proposition that any of these [constitutional] rights is totally exempt from modification by a constitutional amendment adopted by a majority of the voters through the initiative process.

That includes rights described as "inalienable" by the state constitution itself - quoting the decision again:

The state Constitution does not prohibit constitutional amendments qualifying or restricting rights that the state Constitution describes as "inalienable..."

So "narrow and limited exception[s]" to equal treatment under the law and other "inalienable" constitutional rights are purely a matter of popular vote in California. Have fun with that, guys.

Comments

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

The California state constitution's particularly easy to change. This will be as useful to us, eventually, as it currently is to them. But it will never be reliable. That's always the tradeoff; either it's too hard to change to correct gross injustices, or too easy to change by popular whim.

[jennygriffee.livejournal.com]

Three guesses why I can't stand the initiative system.....

[zarq.livejournal.com]

So "narrow and limited exception[s]" to equal treatment under the law and other "inalienable" constitutional rights are purely a matter of popular vote in California. Have fun with that, guys.

I've now read the decision. I think that the court is explaining that they see Proposition 8 as a "disparate impact" problem, rather than strictly an equal protection issue.

What's your take on it?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I received an e-mail this morning from Equality California asking for help on a 100-day campaign to build support for a measure to overturn Prop 8. I was disappointed in their work on Prop 8 but they seem to have taken the criticism to heart and their new plan looks good. They're putting ad campaigns featuring couples and their families and hiring up to 25 organizers (8 already) to go door-to-door in areas that voted for Prop 8 working to change minds, rather than running vague ads that didn't show any real couples, ignoring organizing work, and preaching ineffectively to the choir as they did with Prop 8.

Do you think that donating to that organization is a good idea, or are there other groups working in California that you consider more effective?

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link to the 185-page decision.

This is going to kill a lot of my productivity this afternoon.

[doragoon.livejournal.com]

Has same sex marrage EVER passed a popular vote?

[mtext.livejournal.com]

I'll just leave this here. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.)