California Prop 8 supporters shoot off own feet

[kengr]

Ok, this is gonna be painful for a lot of people so it's going behind a cut.


So, first off, lets see what the prop actually *is*.

From the California "full text of measures" site at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Ok. Very straightforward. Disgusting, but straightforward.

Now let's look at the section of the California State Constitution that the decision legalizing same sex marriage was based upon.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 31.
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

It's part (a) we are interested in.

Nothing in Prop 8 changed that in any way.

So, the legal basis for the decision that opposite sex only marriage is a violation of that section is intact.

Now, in their decision (which seems to have mysteriously disappeared from all the places I can find links for) the justices noted that there were *two* ways to bring California marriage laws into compliance with that equal protection clause. They felt that legalizing same-sex marriage was the less disruptive one.

Since that's been prohibited, when (not *if*) the new set of lawsuits (which will be filed the second the measure has officially passed) reach the CA Supreme court, the justices will almost certainly implement that second solution that they mentioned.

That being remove marriage rights totally and convert everything to civil unions.

At which point this so-called “California Marriage Protection Act” will have *destroyed* marriage in CA.

And while it'll be painful for the good folks I know whose marriage will be affected, I'll enjoy watching all the folks who voted for this atrocity finding out just how *un*equal civil unions are.

And maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country will learn something as well.

Comments

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

It's not going to get that far. A request was filed today with the same Supreme Court that gave us the same sex ruling to overturn Prop 8 because its scope exceeded what is allowed in an amendment.

To revise the state constitution (removing a right found there, in this example) requires that the legislature first pass the measure and then a 2/3rds majority vote in an election.

So odds are that Prop 8 will be tanked very quickly.