6/22/2008

First the California Supreme Court wrote its own laws regarding marriage and overturned a ballot initiative, now the court might stop the new vote

The Associate Press writes:

Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure
By LISA LEFF – 1 day ago
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Gay rights advocates asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.
Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.
"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.
"Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution."
The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all — in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution. . . .


I wonder if the court is more likely to remove the amendment from the ballot if it looks like it will pass.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous cbar10@hotmail.com said...

Markie Marxist sez: "Heads; we Marxists win. Tails; the people lose. Funny how things work out when we have all the power and they don't! Ha! Ha! We own this country! Or at least California! Ha! Ha!"

6/22/2008 7:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The petition also claims the so-called California Marriage Protection Act should be disqualified because it would revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution by altering its fundamental guarantee of equality for all — in essence writing a law the state high court has already found unconstitutional into the constitution."

Huh? Revise as opposed to amend? (A distinction without an operable difference.) Not permissible because it would be writing a law that the state court has already found unconstitutional? (That's a legitimate purpose for amending/revising the constitution.)

6/22/2008 8:35 PM  
Blogger Jay S. said...

I haven't read the California court's opinion from the case, but one question immediately comes to mind: how careful do we need to be about complaining about this? Won't we be facing the same issue when Obama & friends attempting to pass legislation to "overturn" Heller vs. DC (or at the very least ignore parts of what it implies)?

We already know that Brady/VPC and their allies in Congress will try - they've said as much.

I say we let them have their liberties and we keep ours. I believe in "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I understand that this complicates things, but it all becomes much simpler if we restrict the government's recognition of marriage, which should remain a Religious institution. My full opinion here: http://www.thewariscoming.com/twic/?cat=12

6/22/2008 11:29 PM  
Blogger paulbenedict said...

I'm from California, and this thing has made me think a little. This is government gone wild. Marriage certificates in California no longer say "husband" and "wife" they say "Party A" and "Party B." By refusing to recognize husband and wife, the state refuses the 'right to marry' to its citizens. The court, in order to get involved, has called this ‘right to marry’ a constitutional right. Either way, California did not increase the liberties of its citizens, it has stolen them. It has stolen their right to inform the government of its will in the referendum process and it has stolen from them the basic right to marry. Check out: http://thetowncirer.blogspot.com/

6/27/2008 3:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home