If you caught the gay marriage show on Dr. Phil Friday you got to watch how far we still need to go in America to achieve equal rights. Dr. Phil’s selection of guests seem to be making the media rounds. For gay marriage Discrimination attorney Gloria Allred, HRC prez Joe Solmonese & San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom appeared pitted against homophobic Pastor Jim Garlow, prez of National Organization of Marriage Maggie Gallagher & co-campaign manager for the Yes on 8 Campaign Jeff Flint. Very little was said that we haven’t heard before but the after show was the real horror....
On Wednesday the day after the 5th anniversary of the passage of Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court decided that they will address the constitutionality of Prop 8....:) Lambda Release in comments....View Our Trailer on Gay Marriage
1 comment:
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT GRANTS REVIEW IN PROP 8 LEGAL CHALLENGES
Court to determine constitutionality of Prop 8
(San Francisco, California, November 19, 2008)—Today the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges
to Prop 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.
On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties
Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity
of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six
individuals and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge,as did
a private attorney in Los Angeles.
The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper
revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title,
which was “Eliminates the right
to marry for same-sex couples,”
the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of
a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.
Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits
challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Prop 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.
On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches
and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide,
also filed a petition asserting that Prop 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not
enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court
to invalidate Prop 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry.
Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.
Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.
Post a Comment