Still reading the state Supreme Court Prop 8 decision, in between quick bites to eat, working, working, practicing, and working. Oh, and sleeping occasionally
( Read more... )
Mmhmm. *sigh* I was with you in terms of what I expected. I'm very disappointed, but I still have confidence that this won't last long.
Still, what the heck is wrong with the Courts that they don't recognise the underlying problem with allowing a simple majority to vote a minority's rights away?
Theoretically, the only right removed here is the right to the word "marriage." In the past, majority vote has been permitted to remove several very substantial rights--like, the right not to be executed. (Prisoners are a suspect class in the same way that women/racial minorities/small religious groups/gays etc. are--they are often discriminated against, and they have limited legal recourse to fix this, and lacking a full set of rights of their own, the state is compelled to make sure they're not abused.)
It's time to seriously challenge the claim that domestic partnerships are legally the same as marriage. They almost are--except that there's not equal access to them.
There are people who are allowed to marry, who would not be allowed to declare a DP if they were of the same gender. And "equal rights after you jump through extra hoops" is not equal rights--that was the logic of poll taxes and voting tests.
I think I'm not touching the prisoners bit with a ten foot pole for lack of sufficient brainpower, but I followed the rest of what you said and thank you very much for elucidating.
Laws affecting the rights of prisoners are treated just like laws affecting the rights of gays, of women, of ethnic or religious minorities: they're held to the "strict scrutiny" standard; the state has to provide an overwhelmingly compelling reason to abridge their rights. (As opposed to the "rational" standard, in which the state just has to prove it'd be beneficial. The state is allowed to restrict the rights of, for example, registered drivers.)
I have to concur with the general view that the majority opinion was essentially a roadmap to undo it. There are Supreme Court decisions, both at the state and federal level, that essentially spell out "this is constitutional and we have to allow it, but it is unjust and unfair. This is how to fix it, should anyone be so inclined *winkwink*." Unfortunately, the Court is driven by the Constitution, not the other way around, and it does look like California's fucked up Constitution allows for this. For now, anyway. I'm holding out a little bit of hope.
I recommend that you leaven the reading by also checking out the short piece "No Justice, No Foul" [300Kb PDF]. I think it may have valuable insights about the decision in question!
Sent you a reformatted PDF version. It's not any shorter, but there's less page turning involved.
I'm bemused to note that they did not eliminate, nor even address, the "nuclear option." Marriage Cases last summer ruled that: 1) Gay couples had the rights to the same respect & public status to their relationships as mixed-gender couples, 2) Reserving the word "marriage" for one class of people, but not others, was discriminatory as it did cause lack of respect & status, 3) ERGO, same-sex couples needed the right to marry.
The other option, which they rejected, was not to allow *anyone* the right to the word "marriage," and have civil unions all around.
This ruling has left that as the only legal option that fits both the ruling in Marriage Cases and Proposition 8.
Marriage Cases: Same- and mixed-sex couples must have equal access to "marriage." Prop 8: Same-sex couples can't have "marriage." Ergo....
Yeah. The *next* round of lawsuits are likely to be interesting. Psychotic, but interesting.
Comments 10
Still, what the heck is wrong with the Courts that they don't recognise the underlying problem with allowing a simple majority to vote a minority's rights away?
--Ember--
Reply
It's time to seriously challenge the claim that domestic partnerships are legally the same as marriage. They almost are--except that there's not equal access to them.
There are people who are allowed to marry, who would not be allowed to declare a DP if they were of the same gender. And "equal rights after you jump through extra hoops" is not equal rights--that was the logic of poll taxes and voting tests.
Reply
--Ember--
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm bemused to note that they did not eliminate, nor even address, the "nuclear option." Marriage Cases last summer ruled that:
1) Gay couples had the rights to the same respect & public status to their relationships as mixed-gender couples,
2) Reserving the word "marriage" for one class of people, but not others, was discriminatory as it did cause lack of respect & status,
3) ERGO, same-sex couples needed the right to marry.
The other option, which they rejected, was not to allow *anyone* the right to the word "marriage," and have civil unions all around.
This ruling has left that as the only legal option that fits both the ruling in Marriage Cases and Proposition 8.
Marriage Cases: Same- and mixed-sex couples must have equal access to "marriage."
Prop 8: Same-sex couples can't have "marriage."
Ergo....
Yeah. The *next* round of lawsuits are likely to be interesting. Psychotic, but interesting.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment