Does Prop. 8 "Amend" or "Revise" California's Constitution?


James Taranto wrote the following, in Tuesday's "Best of the Web" column, regarding efforts to overturn California's Prop. 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman (link):




You may be wonder how the state Supreme Court could overturn a constitutional amendment. As Dale Carpenter, a Minnesota law professor who favors same-sex marriage, explains, the question is whether this amendment is actually a "revision" to the constitution. Although California voters can "amend" the constitution through a ballot measure alone, a "revision" must receive a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before being put before the voters.




Without taking a side on the issue, I'll say that it's apparent that banning same-sex marriage is not "revising" the state constitution. Actually, the court's interpretation of the constitution that allowed same-sex marriage was "revisionist." Let's not blind ourselves to the fact that marriage, under either the US or the various state constitutions, has meant, historically, a union of a man and a woman. When these documents were written, no-one thought that marriage could be defined any other way. How can an amendment that reiterates this historical view be called a "revision?"



Michael C. Dorf rebuts this argument on the FindLaw blog (link):




First, the decision holds that the California Constitution confers upon Californians a fundamental right to marry. The state, and various same-sex marriage opponents, had argued that the right to marry had to be understood in its historical context, and that was as a right of opposite-sex couples alone to marry. The Court rejected this argument as legerdemain. In so doing, the Court drew an analogy to its own 1948 decision invalidating a law barring interracial marriage, and quoted New York Chief Judge Judith Kaye's observation (in dissent in New York's same-sex marriage case) for the proposition that ìfundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.




That was written at the time of the initial court ruling, in May of this year, overturning the law (Prp. 22) banning same-sex marriage. It should be noted that the 1948 ruling allowed interracial marriages between opposite-sex couples only, and that the history of racial discrimination is quite different than the history of homosexual discrimination (Homosexuals have voted, under the same historical restrictions as heterosexuals have, since the inception of the nation). I can't help but also notice that they cite a dissent from a NY State judge in their ruling, meaning it was a losing argument in NY's "left" leaning court system. Not the most best of legal precedents to cite.



This is a complex issue, and a deeply divisive one, so I'm just skimming a few points, here. While I'm sure that same-sex marriage will eventually become the law, it has to be legalized by the legislative branch of government, not by judicial fiat. The court's May ruling was counter-productive for supporters of gay marriage, because now, as Mr. Taranto points out, "Let's suppose the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8. Will Schwarzenegger then be willing to sign legislation legalizing same-sex marriage? It doesn't matter! Such leglsiation is now unconstitutional under Proposition 8."



Read Mr. Taranto's whole piece for his take on Gov. Schwartznegger's cowardice in dealing with this issue, along with his usual funny take on other interesting stories. As for my opinion on this issue, "marriage" is a religious sacrement, and has no place being defined by the state. All "marriages" should be legally defined as "civil unions," which can be defined by the state. I support "civil unions" between same-sex couples. There are already churches that will perform the religious sacrement of marriage for same-sex couples, so it would be a moot point. Of course, that would be too "sweeping" a ruling for a court to make, so I fully expect the California court to call Prop. 8 a "revision" of the California Constitution, and overturn it, taking the judicial shortcut again.



I wonder if they'll ever learn.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Biden Record, and the Democrats Who Supported It, Pt. 4: How Biden Blew Up the Economy With Inflation

   The US economy is in chaos. This is not "spin," or "opinion," but a fact. Some people aren't feeling it as hard as others, because they were well-off before the inflation started. Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, and it will affect those "well-off" people, to a greater degree than it does currently, as the recession sets in. It also will present a crisis for government, as the interest rates for the chronic borrowing that sustains all of their largesse double, triple, or even quadruple. How did we get here, after what was shaping up as a robust recovery from the pandemic response inspired recession?    When Pres. Biden was elected, almost every policy that had been in place was reversed. We've looked at the disatrous results of this on the southern border , but what's happened to our economy has impacted many more Americans. It started out on day one, when Biden killed the KeystoneXL pipeline, followed by freezing new federal leases ...
Read more

HATE FROM THE MOUTHS OF CHILDREN: AUTUM (AUTUMN?) ASHANTE AND THE GAEDE TWINS

Image
AUTUM ASHANTE LAMB AND LYNX GAEDE I hate to have to write this, but it has to be written. Beautiful children's minds are being corrupted with racial hatred, and their parents are profiting from it. The Gaede twins have a pop band, and Miss Ashante is a poetic prodigy. The parents promote their children's careers. These young girls are the true victims of racism, because they are predestined to continue this cycle of hate. Autum Ashante (-or is it spelled Autumn Ashante ?) is a 7-year old child, home-schooled by her parents (according to the NY POST -free registration required- see below for more on this). I heard it reported on MSNBC that they are members of the Nation of Islam, but I can't confirm that elsewhere. This young lady gave a recital of her poem, "White Nationalism Put U in Bondage." Some excerpts: "Black lands taken from your hands, by vampires with no remorse."..."They took the gold, the wisdom and all the storytellers. They took th...
Read more

The Biden Debacle Part II

  In my previous post, I wrote about Pres. Biden's disastrous policy at the border, as well as it's impact on the spread of COVID. I also noted his false promise of bipartisanship, and embrace of the far left agenda. This post will deal with some of that agenda, including it's impact on the economy, law enforcement, race relations, education and the military. They're all interconnected in no small way, and Pres. Biden is making a mess of them all. With the left wing ascendant in his own party, he has found it easier to go along with them, rather than work with Republicans, even when they propose policies that a majority of Democrats support. The economy was recovering before Biden assumed office, and yet he continues to push a long wish list of leftist policies in the name of "recovery." The extension of unemployment benefits is a good example of how they can backfire. While he denies that the extra payments were keeping people from returning to work, the sta...
Read more