I'm appalled at the precedent the California Supreme Court set Tuesday: That the rights of a minority protected class can be altered or revoked by a simple majority vote.By upholding Prop. 8 as a valid Constitutional amendment, they basically said that voters can add discrimination and inequality into our State Constitution as long as more than 50 percent of people voting want to.
What?!
To make things even more ridiculous, the Justices also ruled that the gay marriages performed before Prop. 8 was passed are still valid.
So, now we have three classes of citizens? Gays who can be married, gays who can't be married and heteros who are free to marry and divorce and commit adultery and fornicate all that they want without any legal restrictions "to protect the sanctity of marriage" because they are in the majority.
Because 51 percent of people who voted last November think gays should not have the right to marriage, that means they get to take the right away from them?! Oh, unless they've already exercised that right. Then they get to keep the privileges and responsibilities related to that right?
Again, I am reduced to a stunned, "What?!"
Substitute "gays" for, say, "Catholics" or "women" or "blacks" or "left-handed". Now substitute "marriage" for "voting" or "driver's license" or "due process" or "free education".
Maybe then you will see how disturbing and wrong this precedent is.
Fundamental rights should not be up for popular vote. Ever. Equality means that everyone is treated equally under the law unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. As soon as we start carving out certain rights for some and not for others, we put all of our rights in danger.
One of the most basic premises of our legal system is that the rights of the minority are not subject to the whims of the majority.
Until this week. When The California Supreme Court said the exact opposite.
I can't believe that people who claim to be in favor of "small government" think that the government should regulate which of it's citizens get to exercise their legal right to enter into a personal contract of their choosing.
How far down the rabbit hole do we need to fall before people realize that they are only hurting themselves by insisting on creating haves and have-nots?
Will you only realize the damage you have done when it is your rights on the chopping block?
"If everybody minded their own business,
the world would go around a great deal faster than it does."
~ The Duchess, Alice in Wonderland
the world would go around a great deal faster than it does."
~ The Duchess, Alice in Wonderland
Amen! This decision gets the giant, neon "WTF?!?!" sign placed directly over it. It's hard enough to find someone to love in this world who also loves you as well. Telling two people who have accomplished exactly that, regardless of their gender, is not only wrong, it's evil.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiments, but I'm wrestling with this: if the premise of Prop 8 was legally unconstitutional (I am not saying it was; personally I think it wasn't, but I'm neither American nor an expert in constitutional law), wouldn't they have removed it from the ballot before the vote?
ReplyDeleteThis latest ruling from the Supreme Court upheld a vote (a horribly misguided and poorly chosen vote, but a vote nonetheless). If they had overturned it, wouldn't there then be a precedent for them to overturn future votes? And by extension, since the Supreme Court is appointed (it's appointed, right?) then what's to stop someone from appointing a fully partisan court, then using it to retain control of that state in perpetuity by overturning any unfavourable ruling?
Ultimately, the people of California made a choice. Many (most?) people disagree with it, but they were offered the choice and they made one. It sucks, yes, but I don't know if it's the SC's job to "correct" the mistake.
Being Canadian, the kerfuffle over how same-sex marriage is going to be so bad for everyone seems pretty ridiculous. Lots of same-sex marriages here (and some divorces too) and our society has yet to disintegrate.
ReplyDeleteI did like reading the discussion over at Friendly Atheist on the ruling. Lots of interesting back and forth on whether it was legally correct (everybody there pretty much supports same-sex marriage)
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/05/27/am-i-a-bad-person-if-i-think-the-prop-8-ruling-was-correct/
Actually, I agree with you SFD.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem is not the Court's decision this week - it is California's flawed initiative process.
I actually understand and - in one way - agree with the Court ruling in this case. Because, based on the very narrow legal definition that the Justices were asked to rule on - they were correct.They interpreted and applied the law and precedent appropriately, given the exact circumstances of this legal cluster-fuck.
The problem is California's free-for-all initiative process, which allows John Q. Anybody to put any ol' fool thing on the ballot without much in the way of due process.
This should never have been put to a vote. Period.
The system needs fixing. Based on this precedent, it would seem that I could put a proposition on the ballot that says "California only recognizes marriage between people of the same religion." And, as long as 50.1 percent of the voters agree with me, we can make it law.
BUT, such a law would mark a fundamental change to our constitution - which is designed to ensure the rights and freedoms of all citizens without discrimination.
And such a fundamental change should be MUCH harder to make. For all of our protection.
Are you dizzy yet? I am.
The point is that the rights of any group of people should not be subject to the approval of any other group of people.
We either have equal treatment under the law or we don't.
NO ONE's rights should be in danger of being taken away by 51 percent of the voters. (And, please, let us remember that 51 percent of voters is NOT the same as 51 percent of the population.)
In terms of the law, marriage is a legal contract and a fundamental right. (See Loving V. Virginia)
NO ONE should be able to so easily take that right from a whole group of people without due process.
No one group should be able to arbitrarily decide that some of us are "more equal than others".
Rob Thomas had an excellent article on the Huffington Post today about this issue. Stated much more eloquently than I could ever state it. Just appalling that people cannot marry who they love.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I agree with you 100%.
ReplyDeleteBut at least, by allowing those already married couples to continue their matrimony, there's a loophole for future people to fight with.
I totally agree....it is ridiculous that they upheld prop 8. People should be able to marry whomever they want to it doesnt hurt anyone.....my married didnt dwindle out of existence just because at one point gays were allowed to marry....I am almost sad to say that I once lived in California since they apparently like to take peoples rights away
ReplyDelete"I can't believe that people who claim to be in favor of "small government" think that the government should regulate which of it's citizens get to exercise their legal right to enter into a personal contract of their choosing."
ReplyDeleteThis is my precise problem with right leaning politics. I find fundamental inconsistencies in the values presented.
I live in Orange County which is suppossed to be uber-Conservative but it really isn't, at least not where I am. I have two problems with Prop * and the recent ruling on it. One, seriously it's liek the Jim Crow laws, just because it is supported by the popular vote doesn't supercede the fact that it's in violation of civil rights. Two, religious groups from outside the state of California came in and poured money into the initiative. Prop 8 itself was confusing in the way it was written and I'm pretty certain many people voted for it who didn't mean to. Additionally, the dramatic arguments used to scare people who straddle the middle of the road on this issue(like "teaching" gay marriage in school) were either misleading or entirely false. It's unfortunate that a bunch of people who don't even reside in California were able to upend our states progressive record with regard to civil rights.
ReplyDelete