A great article in Newsweek
- Thread starter rickr
- Start date
Thanks Rick, that was excellent.
I especially like the quote from Ronald Regan: "Homosexuality is not a contagious disease like measles, prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
The "golden calf" of the GOP speaking against limiting the rights of a minority of Americans - imagine the horror!
I especially like the quote from Ronald Regan: "Homosexuality is not a contagious disease like measles, prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."
The "golden calf" of the GOP speaking against limiting the rights of a minority of Americans - imagine the horror!
frontaloadotmy
Well-known member
rr of da hood
thanks. It reminded me freshly of anita and briggs, and then
later lyndon larouche. How weird it was for me to finally
"arrive" in San Francisco and within two weeks or less have the ghastly Jim Jones Guyana Event occurr followed barely by
a few days of Mayor Moscone and Harvey's assassinations. Though I remember so clearly thinking how it was so grand
to finally be "out" and in SF in spite of the turmoil.
I keep comparing the right to marry too the right to use the
words Gay Olympics , tho the ramifications were a bit less ;
I know as everybody with a working brain does , that most
words are for everybody , not for some to claim exclusive
"rights" too. I happily expect that one of my Grand Nieces
will be able to marry her girlfriend ; I know that the selfishness will eventually demise of its pointlessness.
thanks. It reminded me freshly of anita and briggs, and then
later lyndon larouche. How weird it was for me to finally
"arrive" in San Francisco and within two weeks or less have the ghastly Jim Jones Guyana Event occurr followed barely by
a few days of Mayor Moscone and Harvey's assassinations. Though I remember so clearly thinking how it was so grand
to finally be "out" and in SF in spite of the turmoil.
I keep comparing the right to marry too the right to use the
words Gay Olympics , tho the ramifications were a bit less ;
I know as everybody with a working brain does , that most
words are for everybody , not for some to claim exclusive
"rights" too. I happily expect that one of my Grand Nieces
will be able to marry her girlfriend ; I know that the selfishness will eventually demise of its pointlessness.
Ballot initiative for 2010. And if it doesn't pass, 2012. Then 2014. Etc:
Repeals Section 7.5 of the California Constitution. Amends California Constitution to require all subsequent constitutional amendment proposals receive a two-thirds affirmative vote of the electorate for passage.
Part of me is hoping our marriage right is restored via popular vote, the same way it was taken from us. The "defense of marriage" morons can go after our judges, but let them bankrupt themselves, trying to get a 2/3 vote of California's electorate.
Repeals Section 7.5 of the California Constitution. Amends California Constitution to require all subsequent constitutional amendment proposals receive a two-thirds affirmative vote of the electorate for passage.
Part of me is hoping our marriage right is restored via popular vote, the same way it was taken from us. The "defense of marriage" morons can go after our judges, but let them bankrupt themselves, trying to get a 2/3 vote of California's electorate.
Here's a rough draft of a letter I'm sending to our state Supreme Court. Comments/suggestions are welcome.
I quote your decision from last May:
"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.
"Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny” — is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
"Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."
Considering this opinion, why did the Court refuse to issue a stay on Proposition 8, and how could the Court even consider upholding it?
If Proposition 8 had said, "Only marriage between two people of the same race is valid or recognized in California", would this Court be any more likely to strike it down? The only conceivable answer to this question is that, at this point in California's history, it is more politically correct to bash gay people than it is to bash racial minorities. Are gay people any less human today than they will be 20 or 50 or 100 years from now, when all of us will look back in astonished wonder at this "defense of marriage" nonsense -- the same way we look back now at anti-miscegenation laws?
I beg the Court to remedy this injustice and hypocrisy. Proposition 8 can serve no conceivable purpose other than to eliminate the Court's right to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, to enshrine a "Citizen, Second Class" status into our Constitution, to isolate a specific minority of people who have been unjustly persecuted for over 3000 years, and finally to deny this minority their fundamental right to form legally recognized unions which are equal in respect and dignity to the rest of our population. Prop 8 is not, and never could be, something other than civil gay bashing. If the state has a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, I look forward to hearing what those interests are. Specifically.
I quote your decision from last May:
"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.
"Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny” — is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.
"Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."
Considering this opinion, why did the Court refuse to issue a stay on Proposition 8, and how could the Court even consider upholding it?
If Proposition 8 had said, "Only marriage between two people of the same race is valid or recognized in California", would this Court be any more likely to strike it down? The only conceivable answer to this question is that, at this point in California's history, it is more politically correct to bash gay people than it is to bash racial minorities. Are gay people any less human today than they will be 20 or 50 or 100 years from now, when all of us will look back in astonished wonder at this "defense of marriage" nonsense -- the same way we look back now at anti-miscegenation laws?
I beg the Court to remedy this injustice and hypocrisy. Proposition 8 can serve no conceivable purpose other than to eliminate the Court's right to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution, to enshrine a "Citizen, Second Class" status into our Constitution, to isolate a specific minority of people who have been unjustly persecuted for over 3000 years, and finally to deny this minority their fundamental right to form legally recognized unions which are equal in respect and dignity to the rest of our population. Prop 8 is not, and never could be, something other than civil gay bashing. If the state has a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, I look forward to hearing what those interests are. Specifically.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
How Many Cycle Defrost Refrigerators Exist?
- Latest: turbokinetic
-
Matchbox Hoover suspension help- Latest: Frigidaire Deluxe
Sponsored
