Historically, the odds are against the challengers of Prop. 8's constitutionality. The court has allowed some ground-breaking constitutional changes to become law by initiative - the Proposition 13 tax limitations, restoration of the death penalty, legislative term limits and a pro-prosecution overhaul of evidence rules - and declared only two measures to be constitutional revisions.
....
The court has never said that the repeal of a single right, like the right to marry, amounts to a constitutional revision. Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that the court should set a standard that protects a historically persecuted minority group from losing rights by majority vote.
"By deliberately stripping lesbian and gay people of a fundamental right, Proposition 8 cuts directly at the very notion of equal personhood" and leaves judges powerless to intervene, lawyers for a group of same-sex couples said in a court filing.
Although legal commentators are divided, most appear to consider the argument a longshot.
The thing of it is, if the opponents of 8 really believed the proposition was a "revision," it should have been challenged BEFORE the election. What this is really about is the SSM supporters are very afraid that if the proposition is upheld, which it will likely be, their chances of EVER having SSM on any kind of national basis is zilch.
It was anyway, but this was a deadly blow.
Well, the gay rights movement seriously overreached here, and the general public is pushing back. SSM not only defies tradition and history, but it also defies common sense, once one realizes what the purpose of marriage really is about. Personally I don't actually oppose it, but I know good and well this is nothing but a hopeless cause.
Update: The California Supreme Court will hear challenges to the new amendment.
Details are here. Don't expect a quick ruling:
At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the justices voted 6-1 to grant review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative, with Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting.
However, the court refused, 6-1, to let same-sex marriages resume while it considers Prop. 8's constitutionality. Justice Carlos Moreno cast the dissenting vote.
Approved by 52 percent of voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage - a union of a man and a woman - that the court had overturned May 15. Both Kennard and Moreno were in the majority of that 4-3 ruling.
...
The justices asked for written arguments to be submitted by Jan. 15. The court could hold a hearing as early as March, with a ruling due 90 days later.
The fact the court refused to issue a stay is bad news for Prop 8 opponents. Ten cents says the proposition will be upheld.
No comments:
Post a Comment