Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It PassLegal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution's Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone
San Francisco–The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group–lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.
The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.
"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right–here, the right to marry–not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."
"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.
The groups filed the lawsuit today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.
The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.
"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."
This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.
In a statement issued earlier today, the groups stated their conviction, which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state must continue to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California.
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
And not to mention, those people who claim that marriage is a sacred vow between a man and a woman are probably the same people who have gone through three divorces and cheat on their spouses whilst sending a monthly check to their kids' boarding school is considered quality time with the kids.
There is a term for that kind of logical process but damn I can't remember it!
Originally posted by Bada's Palin
Moff, are you for or against Gay Marriages?
I believe that the state has no right to dictate whether or not people can engage in marriage...so I am in favour of them having the right to marry.
However, as a Catholic I do not recognise the marriage as valid anymore than I recognise Islam as truth...but I do not try and limit the right of Muslims to practice therefore I wouldn't restrict the right of gay people to marry...
Originally posted by BackFire
Bummer that it passed. Only a matter of time, though, before you guys get the rights you deserve.Separate but equal is inherently not equal.
They can get civil unions! Just not 'marriage'. Well every state that allows civil unions, don't have the same rights as people are married. Therefore, it really is seperate but equal personified.
Its like we don't learn from history.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However, as a Catholic I do not recognise the marriage as valid anymore than I recognise Islam as truth...but I do not try and limit the right of Muslims to practice therefore I wouldn't restrict the right of gay people to marry...
I've probably said this before, but I like your version of religion, lol
Originally posted by inimalist
I've probably said this before, but I like your version of religion, lol
I did sympathise with what Joe Biden tried to say on abortion, and it is funny because I was thinking a similar thing myself earlier in the same week.
The Church teaches abortion is murder, Catholics believe this because it is Church teaching even though the scientific opinion on it is divided. Really, it is a matter of faith.
The Church teaches Jesus is God, Catholics believe this because it is Church teaching even though the theological/historical opinion on it is divided. Again, Christ's divinity is a matter of faith.
I agree 100% with both Church teachings- however I would never try to force people to believe in Jesus and the Church would never expect me to if I was a politician in the Modern World...
Thus on abortion, I can work to try and reduce the numbers of abortion by tackling social issues such as poverty while also encouraging state responsibility etc (and also pursue scientific clarification on what the unborn child is) but it would not be right for me to attempt to ban abortion which to many is not seen as the execution of a child but the termination of a featus.
I would always advise against abortion, I would never take part in abortion. I would also voice my opposition to it- but, I do so as a matter of faith. I cannot enforce my faith upon other people but I do use it to inform my conscience on everyday issues...
Where Biden and Pelosi went wrong is they tried to distort Church teachings, for which they should have been excommunicated as quickly as the womanpriests group...since they believe in a separation of Church and State (which I don't find feasible to be quite honest) they can be removed from the Church in their personal lives without affecting their public duty...
Originally posted by BackFire
Separate but equal is inherently not equal.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's also not just going to happen when people (we have some in here) arrogantly declare they have no ill will towards homosexuals and they think homosexuals should have equality, yet they supported Prop 8 which FACTUALLY did away with equality.The very least those haters could do is have the ****ing minerals to just state their true feelings, while they're oppressing people.
(If you're not referring to me): Yeah, **** those bigots.
If a proposition was up for vote tomorrow that guaranteed gay couples who are joined in a union the same rights and benefits as married couples, but denied them the use of the term 'marriage', and instead gave the term [something; not derogatory and can even be a word the you in your own mind could conceivably accept], how would you vote?
(Gay couples are not punished for using the term 'marriage' loosely in this alternate reality, but on paper, officially, the term that represents their union is that other word.)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Where Biden and Pelosi went wrong is they tried to distort Church teachings, for which they should have been excommunicated
Don't you think they might just fall into the category of the many, many followers who don't know what the faith teaches, simply because it doesn't mean as much to them as it has to appear in order to garner the public support of the many, many people who assume far too much understanding of their own faith that they themselves don't take all that seriously? Their follies didn't adhere because the vast majority of people who vote on their faith and the candidates they think they support don't know shit from shinola. Public religion for most Americans doesn't mean they know all that much about it as they want to appear they do; as much as they want to appear as though it causes a second thought when they make up their mind. This is how the piety of someone like Jesus can be turned into a faith of hate, obtuseness and exclusivity. It's like calling Buddha a radical Islamic fundamentalist.
Originally posted by Devil King
Don't you think they might just fall into the category of the many, many followers who don't know what the faith teaches, simply because it doesn't mean as much to them as it has to appear in order to garner the public support of the many, many people who assume far too much understanding of their own faith that they themselves don't take all that seriously? Their follies didn't adhere because the vast majority of people who vote on their faith and the candidates they think they support don't know shit from shinola. Public religion for most Americans doesn't mean they know all that much about it as they want to appear they do; as much as they want to appear as though it causes a second thought when they make up their mind. This is how the piety of someone like Jesus can be turned into a faith of hate, obtuseness and exclusivity. It's like calling Buddha a radical Islamic fundamentalist.
I think people who quote Augustine, Aquinas and even Gregory I have done a bit more than light reading of Catholic teachings to know what the Church thinks about abortion.
Everyone knows that the Catholic Church is anti-abortion, all the bishops in the US screaming about it from the pulpits for the last year should have been a dead give away- you cannot honestly believe that both of them didn't realise the Church taught abortion was wrong- whats worse is when the Bishops explained to them the situation they never took back their comments.
Uts OK to believe what you want to believe, but you can't believe in something anti-catholic and still claim to be part of the club...
Originally posted by KidRock
lmao at this thing flopping on its face in one of the most liberal states.
Don't you think that the reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as a liberal state or a conservative state? Obama won VA, NC, IN. Does that not slap your notion square in the face?
Originally posted by Aequo Animo
If a proposition was up for vote tomorrow that guaranteed gay couples who are joined in a union the same rights and benefits as married couples, but denied them the use of the term 'marriage', and instead gave the term [something; not derogatory and can even be a word the you in your own mind could conceivably accept], how would you vote?(Gay couples are not punished for using the term 'marriage' loosely in this alternate reality, but on paper, officially, the term that represents their union is that other word.)
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Its OK to believe what you want to believe, but you can't believe in something anti-catholic and still claim to be part of the club...
It isn't just okay, it's the most prevelant assumption in which most followers "believe". But this is not my point. My point is that the majority of christians subscribe to a certain ideology that their particular brand of faith may or may not adhere; only what they assume that faith implies. Jesus Christ was a man who never said anything about race or orientation. He spoke at length about acceptance, forgiveness and understanding. As a matter of example, his followers have spent the last 2000 years ascribing more importance to the opinions of a man who is not held up to be the son of god over the man they worship and consider divine. A man they know full well was not in any position to speak for the man he assumed the right to speak for. This faux pas isn't limited to christians, either. Muslims do it. Buddhists do it. Hindus do it. I was raised and educated Catholic; I had to study it. I had to study it and when my own logic and experience was applied to that study I came out on the other side with my own opinions on it's validity. This reality is what must be considered when understanding what every person who claims themselves to be of one faith or another. That faith is considered, internalized, individually applied and followed, for each and every person of faith. When a catholic mother finds out her daughter is pregnant at 16, she may reconsider official position on abortion. When a mormon mother finally accepts that her son is gay, she is forced to reconsider official position. When a white mother finally is given no option other than to accept her son is marrying a black woman who is carrying her grandchild, she has to reconsider her position on what that means to her, personally.
Originally posted by Devil King
It isn't just okay, it's the most prevelant assumption in which most followers "believe". But this is not my point. My point is that the majority of christians subscribe to a certain ideology that their particular brand of faith may or may not adhere; only what they assume that faith implies. Jesus Christ was a man who never said anything about race or orientation. He spoke at length about acceptance, forgiveness and understanding. As a matter of example, his followers have spent the last 2000 years ascribing more importance to the opinions of a man who is not held up to be the son of god over the man they worship and consider divine. A man they know full well was not in any position to speak for the man he assumed the right to speak for. This faux pas isn't limited to christians, either. Muslims do it. Buddhists do it. Hindus do it. I was raised and educated Catholic; I had to study it. I had to study it and when my own logic and experience was applied to that study I came out on the other side with my own opinions on it's validity. This reality is what must be considered when understanding what every person who claims themselves to be of one faith or another. That faith is considered, internalized, individually applied and followed, for each and every person of faith. When a catholic mother finds out her daughter is pregnant at 16, she may reconsider official position on abortion. When a mormon mother finally accepts that her son is gay, she is forced to reconsider official position. When a white mother finally is given no option other than to accept her son is marrying a black woman who is carrying her grandchild, she has to reconsider her position on what that means to her, personally.
Ok..didn't understand what you were trying to say in the first part...something to do with people ascribing positions and opinions to Jesus which he never had or something...
Your second part is moral relativism- the idea that nothing is absolutely wrong and the morality of an act depends on the situation...or are you then trying to say circumstances can overtake doctrine in how people live their lives and think about things? I don't quite understand what you mean in this post, sorry.