KBD

Keith Devens .com

Tuesday, March 16, 2010 Flag waving
All non-trivial abstractions, to some degree, are leaky. – Joel Spolsky (The Law of Leaky Abstractions)
← Little Green Footballs - It's Safe for Ayers to Surface Nowishida >> blog » Personal names around the world 1 →

Daily link icon Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

My Way News - Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

Disgusting. The people voted to amend their state constitution and the court would consider overturning it. So much for democracy.

As for whether the voters "have the authority" to amend their constitution, article 18 of the California state constitution states:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION


SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

← Little Green Footballs - It's Safe for Ayers to Surface Nowishida >> blog » Personal names around the world 1 →

Comments XML gif

Crawford wrote:

hi keith! hope all is well south of the mason dixon. i agree that these lawsuits pretty much have no merit. i think they should be suing because the ban is an infringement on their religious beliefs.

∴ Crawford | 20-Nov-2008 1:04pm est | #10957

Keith (http://keithdevens.com/) wrote:

Yo Crawfish!

I wish instead of the language "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." they'd used something like "In this constitution 'marriage' is defined as the union between one man and one woman". I feel like those in favor of the "gay marriage ban" lost the debate due to the language being used, even though they happened to win the vote. No one likes a ban on things.

The text of the proposition itself was pretty neutral:

PROPOSITION 8

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

But on the ballot it showed up as:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That text is so intellectually offensive because it begs the question on whether it actually is a "right" for gay couples to "marry". If it's a "right" how can you eliminate it? That's wrong. I wonder how many percentage points of the vote this extremely biased description on the ballot accounted for.

Anyway, the point is definitional. I don't believe that the authors of the constitution of the state of California, the preamble of which thanks the "Almighty God" for their freedom and blessings, intended the use of "marriage" in their constitution to mean anything other than the union of one man and one woman.

Keith | 20-Nov-2008 1:56pm est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #10958

Justin (http://www.justinbarkhuff.com/) wrote:

I would argue the point is not definitional. While the word marriage is subject to cultural definitions, marriage is also a legal status that comes with certain rights. In defining marriage to be between 'a man and woman', Prop 8 denies the legal status of 'married' to gay couples.

A majority of CA voters passed Prop 8; however, that doesn't necessarily mean the Proposition is legal. An argument against Prop 8 is that denying the status of marriage (and it's associated rights) to gay couples violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To me, there seems to be a legitimate legal argument to see if Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Should that argument be made, it will be up to the courts to decide.

Finally, here are a few of the rights of 'marriage':

  1. Joint parental rights of children
  2. Joint adoption
  3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
  4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
  5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
  6. Crime victims recovery benefits
  7. Domestic violence protection orders
  8. Judicial protections and immunity
  9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
  10. Public safety officers death benefits
  11. Spousal veterans benefits
  12. Social Security
  13. Medicare
  14. Joint filing of tax returns
  15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
  16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
  17. Child support
  18. Joint Insurance Plans
  19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
  20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
  21. Estate and gift tax benefits
  22. Welfare and public assistance
  23. Joint housing for elderly
  24. Credit protection
  25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
∴ Justin | 20-Nov-2008 4:37pm est | http://www.justinbarkhuff.com/ | #10959

Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.

Formatting Rules (No HTML):

  • **bold**, *italic*, _underlined_, --strikeout--
  • "text"="url" creates a link, and URLs are auto-highlighted
  • Blockquote: Like e-mail, begin paragraph with > (greater-than sign)
  • Lists: begin paragraph with *,-, or + (unordered), or # (ordered)
  • Code block: ?!code:language=perl|php|sql|javascript|etc.{\n}...{\n}?!/code

:
(will be your IP address if blank)
: (optional)
(Will not be shown on site)

: (optional)
:

March 2010
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031 



RSS feed RSS feed for Keith's Weblog
Atom feed Atom feed for Keith's Weblog
Weblog archive
Recent comments
  on 1 posts

Recent comments XML

new⇒Quantum physics and free will

I knew you were going to say that....

Tom Massey: Mar 15, 9:26pm

Generated in about 0.129s.

(Used 8 db queries)