The supreme court in california will overturn prop 8.

[ej510]

It is against our states constitution. Gays are entitled to equal protection under the law.

[Lifelong Protester]

1. That is good to hear.

I hope this will come to pass. Now is the time.

[az chela]

2. Wow this is the best damn news

EVERYTHING is coming up ROSES

[billyoc]

3. It would have been against the U.S. Constitution, too,

if not for DOMA's removal of those protection for marriage only. :grr:

[regnaD kciN]

30. DOMA is not part of the U.S. Constitution...

It's only a normal law that could, theoretically, be declared unconstitutional itself. However, I doubt anyone will make the effort unless Obama gets the chance to appoint enough SCOTUS justices to change the current partisan makeup.

[Uzybone]

4. No responsible court will let it stand

Its blatantly unconstitutional.

[TexasObserver]

5. I haven't seen the legal path yet that could lead there, but won't be surprised with such a ruling.

We have to hope for a judicial solution, as the enforcement of basic rights, because that is the only way to prevent these legislative or initiative attacks on gay rights.

[vaberella]

6. I'd like a link. But thank you. This is EXACTLY what I've been arguing.

People on this site were quick to blame Blacks for Prop 8 to pass. None of them, and I mean little to none actually saw that damn problem wasn't the bloody voters, it was the fact that the right was ALREADY a right and it was unconstitutional in the first place to be stricken. It goes against one of the human rights and equal rights. They couldn't get their heads out of their arses to see the real culprit was the Government for even DARING to put that as a proposition on a ballot.

I'm happy this is being overturned. It's fuckin' nonsense. However, and unfortunately my disappoinment in people on this site will never be remedied though because the Black blame game was just shocking to understand. No one even checked the demographic of Blacks and I'm sure the damned vote wasn't ONLY determined by Blacks, since they're population in California is actually very low in consideration to other racial groups. But hell no, blame it on the Blacks. Fuckin' stupid.


Thanks again EJ510, this is great news alongside all the other great news we've had.

[AuntPatsy]

20. I found that strange that so many were quick to believe the media saying that since

when can we trust them not to attempt to start a bit of drama?

[aquamarina]

7. I would also think there is some kind of 4th amendment privacy issue at stake

here as well. I think it's time for the Mormons (and all religions for that metter) to lose their tax exempt status. If this isn't a blatant example of a religous organization overstepping the separation of church and state I don't know what is.

I truly believe that the CA supreme court will overturn this nonsense. If you were to substitute "slavery" for "gay marriage" then I don't think there is a snowflake's chance in hell that this proposition will stand.

[ej510]

11. This will definately be overturned I have no doubt in my mind.

Fuck anyone whom wishes to discriminate against people.

[Mollis]

28. Very much agree about the Mormon church

There is no way that they can spend so much for those ads and remain exempt.

[knixphan]

50. agreed. Who's spearheading that charge? I wanna help 'em.

[ashling]

8. We discussed this in Constitutional Law today

it was our understanding that this Prop was in the form of a constitutional amendment which would actually amend the Const. of California. I am not sure this is the case, but if so, wouldn't that mean that the Calif. Supreme Court would have their hands tied?

How do you see this getting to the SCOTUS?

I'm not from Calf. and don't claim to know the technicalities of the politiclal/constitutional situation there...

[regnaD kciN]

34. Yes, it would...

Unless there's some sort of legal fancy footwork that can be found, or some glaring loophole in Prop8, I see no way the California SC can overturn a constitutional amendment.

The SCOTUS is another matter. State constitutions have to comply with the federal one, so the SCOTUS could even overturn a voter-approved amendment to a state constitution. (As an example, consider what would happen if one of the southern states passed a constitutional amendment re-legalizing slavery.) Whether the current Roberts/Thomas/Scalia/Alito/Kennedy SCOTUS would actually do so is, I would think, doubtful at best.

[Zomby Woof]

9. The prop amends the constitution

That's the reason the bigots got it on the ballot.

It will still be challengeable, but being part of the state constitution makes it that much more difficult to fight.

But fight it we will, you can be assured.

It's ballot initiatives that make me a Hamiltonian, suspicious of mob rule and direct democracy, sad to say.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

10. That was my original thought, but...

how can they overturn it as unconstitutional, when this proposition added it to the constitution? Isn't it by definition now constitutional to discriminate against us gays in California? I could see where the national courts could overturn it, but not the state courts. I just don't understand how you can allow bigotry to be added to the constitution. It's ridiculous how easy it is to change the constitution in CA. That needs to change.

[ej510]

12. You can overturn turn discrimination.

Civil rights law makes the prop 8 amendment illegal.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

13. I hope so...

I really do.

[COLGATE4]

14. The California court can't overturn it on the basis of unconstitutionality

Since this was very carefully prepared as an amendment to the California constitution. By definition, it is constitutional. Until the SCOTUS is prepared to declare any such provisions as unconstitutional, the California ban will stand (unless there's some way the proposal itself could be challenged in court, a very unlikely proposition).

[ruggerson]

24. Wrong

there are two ways to amend the California constitution. Revision and amendment. This can be challenged because it conflicts with ANOTHER part of the CA constitution: equal protection. Therefore, it can be argued that since this changed a basic tenet of the CA constitution, it should have been legally considered a "revision" which would require a 2/3rds vote of the CA legislature before it goes to referendum.

[Pithlet]

26. But then why did the courts let the initiative go on the ballot to begin with, then?

If an amendment tacked on by a proposition wouldn't do the trick, it seems the courts should have shot it down before it even went on the ballot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Californian's shouldn't try like hell to get this overturned, but I'm afraid it's going to be a hell of a battle if the courts were conservative enough to let that damned measure go on the ballot to begin with.

[ruggerson]

32. I suppose because it hadn't passed

thus there was no legal standing for anyone to object to it.

[Pithlet]

41. The California Supreme court actually denied

a petition calling for the removal of prop 8 under the grounds that it was a constitutional revision. I'm not saying it's an impossible fight. But I think it's going to be a tough one. I'm not sure it's going to be as easy as the CSC just ruling in our favor. I know it seems that way because it's such a grave injustice. But, it might have to go all the way to the USSC.

[msanthrope]

51. Exactly--the issue wasn't 'ripe'. Now it is, and now let's see

if the CA state courts want to take up this issue....and if not, go to the fed.....hey..Prop 14 got overturned, too.

I'd start using the word 'animus,' a lot.

[grantcart]

53. the courts were simply ruling on the wording of the actual ballot measure being

consistent with the petitions.

When you have a petition it is up to the Attorney General to give it a title and explanation that is consistent with the actual impact of the legislation.

In this case the pro 8 people thought that Brown had made the official language of the ballot too favorable to the no on 8 side.

There was never a ruling on the constitutionality of the ammendment which cannot be in contradiction of itself.


It is possible, but not easy, to find an ammendment unconstitutional.

[Silent3]

22. What I don't get is how a simple majority vote...

...is all it takes to amend the California state constitution. Am I missing something? This seems ridiculous. It should take a super majority, like 2/3 or 3/4 to amend the constitution, or some difficult, time-consuming legislative process requiring a super majority in the state legislature.

Being able to amend a state constitution via a simple popular majority on a single direct vote for a proposition put on a ballot makes for a pretty idiotic system, blurring a very important distinction that should exist between constitutional law and ordinary law.

[Pithlet]

23. Yep. It's a pretty idiotic system.

I really don't know how Californians have put up with it for this long. You end up with crap like Prop 8 passing. It is ridiculous, isn't it?

[Guaranteed]

35. But, get this- California can't pass a budget without a 2/3 majority!

Genius, eh?


Yeah- California needs a Constitutional Convention. The whole system is screwed up.

[grantcart]

27. an ammendment to the constitution cannot be in contradiction to the constitution

lets say they passed a constitutional ammendment saying that women cannot vote (forget the US constitution for a second) the state supreme court would have to strike the ammendment down as being unconstitutional --

It is possible to strike down but not easy.

[regnaD kciN]

37. I don't think so...

In the case where a state constitution is amended to take away a right granted by the federal constitution, the federal judicial system has the jurisdiction to strike it down; but, as far as I know, the state judicial system itself lacks the authority to do anything but rule based on the state's own constitution.

And, of course, the federal judiciary can only intervene when the state's constitution contradicts the federal one. But I have yet to see any federal court decisions ruling that the "right to marry" applies to same-sex couples. And do you think the current SCOTUS would declare such a thing?

However, another question arises: would any federal action have to go to the SCOTUS? Is it possible for there to be a scenario where No-on-8 forces simply take the state to a federal district court and, if that court rules that Prop8 was (federally) unconstitutional, have Governator Ahunld and Attorney General Moonbeam decide not to appeal the case, but simply let the lower-court ruling stand? If the suit is brought against the State of California, I don't know if any other "interested party" could appeal the decision, or only the State itself? :shrug:

[bridgit]

15. Correct! Fair Treatment!! Everyone is entitled to equal protection under our constitution

[justiceischeap]

16. Read this thread in GD about how Prop 8 will never be part of the Constitution

DU Member Noiretblu gives a great explanation of why this amendment will never come to fruition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4386838&mesg_id=4386838

[ej510]

17. It cannot stand because then you open the doors for a shit load

of discrimination like slavery. Believe me prop 8 is not constitutional.

[AzNick]

18. The Church of LDS vs The People

I don't understand these people. If the gays and lesbians go to hell, according to their own belief, won't it make heaven roomier for them?

[AuntPatsy]

19. It is not only fantastic news it is the right way to handle this but what galls me is that

an Americans rights should never have come up for a vote in the first place.

[Lex]

21. Basic civil rights such as the right to marry should never be put to popular vote.

It's outrageous. What if people in South were allowed to vote for or against civil rights for blacks 50 years ago? It's crazy.

[thesubstanceofdreams]

25. I so hope you're right

It's still painful that a majority of Californian are hateful bigots.

[regnaD kciN]

29. How can one rule a constitutional amendment unconstutional...?

By approving it, didn't voters amend the constitution to allow it?

By that standard, what if the current SCOTUS, before Obama could add some progressive members, declared the First and Fourth Amendments to be unconstitutional, and threw them out?

:shrug:

It seems to me that the only recourses are a) to pass another constitutional amendment next time around, nullifying this one, or b) to pass a law establishing "civil unions" with all the rights currently assigned to marriage. (The second option might be easier to pass; however, since it is not "marriage," the rights granted would not necessarily apply for any couple once they left California, since all states reciprocally grant heterosexual "married" couples the same rights even if they were married elsewhere, but practically none acknowledge the same for same-sex civil unions.)

[Guaranteed]

33. Because "amending the Constitution" on a simple majority vote is utterly ridiculous. nt

[regnaD kciN]

38. Ridiculous != unconstitutional, unfortunately...

[totodeinhere]

43. It may be ridiculous, but it's legal. The California constitution has been amended that way...

for many years.

[Guaranteed]

44. It basically means that it's not a Constitution- merely a set of statutes.

The concept of a constitution necessitates that, as the backbone of the law, it can not be amended on a whim or by a bare majority of voters subjected to simplistic advertising campaigns.

[Pithlet]

47. In a way. It makes it a set of statutes

that the CSC can't rule unconstitutional. So the statutes have the protection of a constitution in that sense. So, it's more like a quasi-constitution.

[Guaranteed]

55. They actually can rule it unconstitutional- under the federal constitution.

The state courts do have the power to interpret the federal constitution, subject to federal courts' precedent.

[ShadowLiberal]

36. Only if the federal constitution makes it unconstitutional would be my guess

That's my best guess anyway.

[Slyder]

40. Ballot initiatives were originally a left-wing, Populist, idea

dating from the late 1800s. I think California took it further than anyone else. I am only an historian who has taken a ConLaw class or two, but it seems to be that the only way to keep this abomination from becoming part of the California Constitution is for it to conflict with the US Constitution. And I don't think it does. The US Supreme Court might strike it down under the equal protection clause in the US Constitution. But I believe this amendment to the California constitution would amend the equal protection clause in that state's document.

Constitutional amendments are two-edged swords and only to be undertaken to solve serious governmental issues. If an amendment to the US Constitution passed through the proper channels calling for sending six million Jews to death camps, it would become the law of the land and untouchable by the courts. I suppose Congress could refuse to fund it or the President to carry it out, but it would be perfectly legal. Not right or moral, but legal.

And the amendments written for light or transient causes often come back to bite you in the ass.

[Terran]

42. I believe that you're right

Prop 8 is *part of* the California Constitution now. Unless it explicitly conflicts with another part of that document, I don't see how it can be ruled unconstitutional.

[happychatter]

31. I agree - nt

[tpi10d]

39. fight them thru any possible legal means

1. Challenge prop 8 in CA supreme court. Any other litigation which could help the process.
2. Ballot initiatives every two years until the prop is repealed/removed from the constitution. Encourage new blood every two years to carry on the fight-encourage new ideas. Attempt to wear the opposition out.

3. Economic pressure: Don't want to see gay Californians snowboarding in Utah..go to Mammoth :) Or Blue New Mexico, Colorado, Washington or Oregon. Boycott businesses tied to unfriendly churches etc. Let LDS missionaries know your displeasure with their church.

4. Watch for changes in the US supreme court, possible appropriate timing of federal cases.


Any other ideas?

[Kajsa]

45. Can they overturn 'H8'?

If they can, that would be fantastic!

:)

:woohoo: ( my early happy dance)

[ellie]

46. I hope they do

[bunnies]

48. Why allow people to vote on something only to overturn it?

The whole thing makes no sense to me. An unconstitutional amendment to the constitution was allowed to be on the ballot? What exactly was the purpose of that?

[David__77]

49. That's how they do it in most cases.

The exception has been when an initiative addresses more than one subject - then, they toss it as "obviously" flawed. We will see. I see a good basis for rejecting it as an improper "amendment."

[bunnies]

52. I want to vote on whether or not we can feed rw fundies to lions.

Fair is fair, right? Cant let a little thing like civil rights get in the way.

Although... I'd be more likely to vote 'yes' on the lions than I would to vote to keep anyone from getting married. Its a fucking legal contract for crying out loud. :banghead:

[the father of truth]

54. no marriage in California

If Prop. 8 can't be overturned, it seems the only legitimate option is to ban marriage in its entirety.

No, wait . . . hear me out.

Prop. 8 says California won't recognize gay marriage, but the California Supreme Court's May ruling means the California constitution grants homosexuals equal protection to marry under the law. These two parts of the constitution are contradictory . . .

. . .unless California refuses to recognize straight marriages also.

I doubt the court would ever rule this, but presumably all existing marriages (gay and straight) would roll over into civil unions (maintaining all the rights formerly associated with marriage in California), and "marriage" would return to the full control of religious organizations (although without a legal significance). Separation of church and state. The way it is in some European countries.

[TheCoxwain]

56. Perfect .... Get the State out of the Marriage business... Just Civil unions between two persons

nt