The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage tomorrow when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.
The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?
The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
As California's Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons - because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.
Some vigorously disagree. That's the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California's history and the nature of our constitution.
Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
These fundamental premises of a free people were declared when the constitution was first adopted. The initiative process came much later in 1911, when the immediate concern was to give the people power over the railroads, which were seen as having a stranglehold over the legislature. In creating this initiative process, there was no discussion or any evidence of intent to permit a simple majority of voters to take away the pre-existing rights deemed inalienable by Article I.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of "liberty" includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.
With this Supreme Court decision, same sex marriage has the protection of Article 1 and, like other inalienable rights, cannot be taken away by a popular vote - whether it be 52% (as was the case in Proposition 8) or 65% (as it was for Proposition 14).
I believe, therefore, the Court must conclude as I have that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and should be stricken.
Jerry Brown is California's Attorney General. Become a supporter of Jerry on Facebook or sign-up on his website (www.jerrybrown.org/join).
By Dave Zirin x-posted fromEdge of Sportswith permission.
As supporters of Gay Marriage have discovered, it's never easy to be on the Mormon Church's enemies list. The Church of Latter-Day Saints backed the anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 in California with out-of-state funds, and gave the right a heartbreaking victory this past election cycle. But the Mormon Church has been challenged in the past. Just ask Bob Beamon.
If you know Beamon's name it's almost certainly because he won the long jump gold medal in legendary fashion at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. Beamon leapt 29 feet, 2.5 inches, a record that held for twenty-three years. Great Britain's Lynn Davies told Beamon afterwards, "You have destroyed this event." This is because Beamon was not only the first long jumper to break 29 feet, he was the first to break 28.
Admittedly, I got busy with the holidays and fell behind in my reading at some of my favorite websites. I figured I could bookmark, spend a couple days getting reacquainted with the wife and kids, and then catch up later.
A) Laughable? What's "laughable" is Gary's "6,000 years" assertion re some global six-millennia-strong definition of marriage.
B) Consequences? Gary: maybe some of us are thinking about the consequences for first- and second-graders with LGBT parents, rather than simply ignoring them.
C) Frame it however you'd like, Gary, but if I allow my kids to attend the wedding of a teacher - who they adore - what business is that of yours? Your framing of what you call "a mistake" strikes me as yet another example of folks like you making it your business to infringe on the rights of parents like me.
I just finished reading this from the LDS "Newsroom" ...
Which reminded me that I'd previously written Maurine Proctor (editor of an influential Mormon mag) back in August about some of the stuff that Meridian (her mag) was putting out there in support of Prop 8 ... and that she'd replied with an article by Roger Severino, legal counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The same Becket (of recent No Mob Veto fame) and Ballard (of Mormon Apostolic fame) who were BFF long before they recently started whining about our post-election actions.
Which led me to mutter to myself: enough with the Kabuki, Ballard.
As if Stop The Mormons hadn't long since put together the definitive timeline re your shenanigans.
The Brethren [the top echelon of Mormon leadership] have felt that the best way to organize and pass the Proposition is to have an Ecclesiastical arm and a Grassroots arm to the organization ... The senior folks who run the grassroots are LDS at the coalition and are headed by Glen Greener and Gary Lawrence.
Here's Gary, back in August, firing up his Mormon brigades ...
If same-sex marriage advocates [win], the whole structure collapses - the family, the nation, and in time civilization itself. The time has come for those of us who believe that God, not man, created marriage ... to take a stand and defend it.
(Gary's astounding post-victory TV interview after the break)
Because nice people understand that nice means keeping close to home until all this recent unpleasantness blows over.
That said, Sonja, do you honestly believe that you're the only member of the LDS church who's been involved professionally with the Yes on 8 campaign? What about this guy? Or this guy?
(This is a really interesting internal Mormon point of view about the experience of the Mormon hierarchy's push for Prop 8. Overt and direct use of religious communities for secular political ends damages not only the reputation of the politicized religion, but also tears at the fabric of the community of faithful - promoted by jsw)
By California Mormon
Reposted at Calitics with Permission
I am a lifelong Mormon, a native Californian, and a descendant of Mormon pioneers. Like many other Mormons, I am anguished by my Church's endorsement of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative which would eliminate civil rights to marry now accorded to gay and lesbian people in California.
I am anguished for what this campaign would do in abolishing rights and protections now belonging to fellow California citizens. But I am also anguished by the consequences of this campaign for Mormon families and wards throughout California. Since June, I have felt the profound effects of the "Yes on 8" campaign in our church meetings. In my own ward, it has dominated the content of our Sacrament Meetings and auxiliary meetings, as well as our hallway conversations. What does it mean that we are being asked to give and are giving ourselves so zealously to this campaign?
