Mar 09 2009
California’s Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Prop 8’s Future
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court finished hearing arguments over the validity of Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage. Many of the Court’s judges, who previously overturned state laws banning same-sex marriage last May, now seem favorable to upholding last November’s vote. The marriage ban passed with 52.3 percent support of Californians. Opponents of the ban argued to the court that Prop 8 ‘s provisions were greater than what an amendment to a state constitution allows for. Instead, in their view, the ban on same-sex marriage is a revision which necessitates a two-third’s vote from the state legislature or a constitutional convention. They also contend that allowing Prop 8 to stand would dangerously undermine the inalienability of equal protection. Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor now representing Protect Marriage, argued on behalf of Prop 8, stating that the ballot measure process was valid for its provision and that existing same-sex marriages would no longer be recognized under it. California’s Supreme Court has within ninety days of the hearing to issue a ruling about the validity of Prop 8.
GUEST: Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California
5 Responses to “California’s Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Prop 8’s Future”
Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.
Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities.
Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all.”
Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others.
Stop gay apartheid.
Race: Unquestionably something you are born with, have no control over and can not change — also no evidence exists showing that one race is superior in any way over another race other than minor biological differences or in effect, appearance. In other words racially we are all equal.
Homosexuality: Argued by some to be a trait we are born with but also argued by others not to be so. To this day there is no evidence of a gene that denotes homosexuality. There are also cases between identical twins where one twin is homosexual and the other is heterosexual displaying that despite the exact same genetics, it is their environment that determined their sexuality. Strong evidence exists that homosexuality is entirely an environmental factor (learned) and while hormone levels or other aspects of that nature may vary in individuals making them more prone to certain types of behavior, including homosexuality, it remains a learned choice and behavior.
SO you are trying to compare homosexuality with race, when in fact there is no similarity there to base on comparison. If we are to allow homosexual marriage then we are to destroy the very fabric of marriage itself and what it means to be married. How can a homosexual fight for his right to marriage and then say to the Polygamist down the street that he has no right to marriage with his 2 wives. Or the woman has no right to marry her 2 husbands. I just saw on T.V. the other day a group of polygamists saying they also should have the freedom to marry their multiple partners. Where does pushing the boundry of the definition of marriage end?
No, we can not and will not destroy the institution of marriage. Every person in this country is allowed the freedom to do what they want and choose what they wish to do sexually. A man wants to be with a man in a domestic partnership. Fine, we allow it and they have the right to do so. We do not say that homosexuality is illegal. We will though try to protect the institution of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. This has always been the definition of marriage and if it is changed we might as well throw the word out of our dictionaries because the sanctity of marriage will no longer exist, and there will no longer be a reason for it.
boarderrthom’s comparison is invalid, as homosexuality is a behaviour, not something like the color of your skin or your gender. Inalienable rights are not granted because you fall into a behaviour category such as homosexuality. Furthermore it is stupid for biological reasons alone to argue that a homosexual relationship is worthy of equal reconition as heterosexual unions, as man can only procreate with one woman. Furthermore the biological natural order for raising children is with one man and one woman.
given that the california supreme court ruled last year that the law introduced by prop 22 (identical to prop 8, though inserted into our civil code as law in 2000) violated the equal protections clause of the california constitution, we have a lot more to worry about than equal rights if prop 8 is upheld as an appropriate constitutional AMENDMENT process.
A precedent that upholds the reversal of the california supreme court’s prop 22 decision via a simple majority vote is dangerously destabilizing to the balance of power in our state, and irreversibly undermines the role of the judicial branch and the constitution itself. The constitutional REVISION process is the only appropriate avenue to achieve the goals of prop 8 supporters given the supreme court’s 2008 ruling.
otherwise, any supreme court ruling moving forward could be taking to popular vote and overturned by 51% of voters. the constitution is more complicated than that – which is why we have a judicial branch of government and not simply an electorate.
Personally, I don’t think that the answer is whether or not these things are something you are born with, but rather, what is the process which causes us humans to WANT to exclude others. Who cares if I’m not born with something or if I am? I’m still human. You apparently care.
You see, it takes objectification and dehumanizing in order to want to limit the rights of another human for no reason beyond religious differences.
If that’s the kind of person you want to be, then great! But I wouldn’t say the problem is in some mysterious external effect of genetics, but within the heart and experience of the objectification process of what it takes to want to even BOTHER yourself with another human’s “sins.”
It’s that process that points to the cause of our destructive world. If you personify and humanize someone who is different, it becomes much harder to terminate them.