We, the undersigned, share President Barack Obama’s view that “for too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It’s time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect.”
Yet, on December 19, 2008, Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality of Prop 8 and seeking to nullify the 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted between May and November of 2008.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, 2009, with a decision expected within the next 90 days. We, the undersigned, ask that the Court invalidate Prop 8 and recognize the marriage rights of these 18,000 couples — and all loving, committed couples in California — under our state’s constitution.
As Americans who believe in the rule of law and fundamental civil rights, we know that Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund’s shameful attempt to nullify these unions will not be vindicated in the eyes of history. We know that, ultimately, love will prevail, no matter how hard they try to fight it.
Sincerely, [You’re Name]
(preferably without jumping down my throat) what the legal arguments are for overturning Prop 8. on constitutional grounds. I happen to believe it violates the 14th amendment to the federal Constitution, but my understanding is that it was an amendment to the state constitution and the argument is that it somehow violates the CA constitution. It seems constitutional amendments cannot themselves be unconstitutional unless specifically prohibited by the constitution (such as unequal representation in the US Senate). I just looked at what I thought were the relevant provisions of the CA constitution and found no limitations on what can be amended nor did any of the limitations on the initiative process appear to be relevant to this issue. Nor was I successful in finding the arguments on the Courage Campaign website. Can you quote for me the text of the CA Constitution (or I guess case law precedent would work too)which would disallow this type of amendment? I know there has been discussion as to the distinction between an amendment and a revision, but the constitutional text itself does not, as far as I can tell, define these terms.
Here is the CA Supreme Court’s Prop 8 page. You can read the filings, briefs, etc. there to see what arguments are being made.
Good thing I have the patience to read those kinds of documents!:)
<
p>So I guess it sounds like an amendment is an addition of a topic not previously addressed by the Constitution, whereas a revision is change to provisions already addressed; therefore the one-sentence argument is that Prop. 8 “revises” other provisions guaranteeing equal protection?
<
p>I also noticed that the initiative clause under the amendments and revisions article uses the verb “amend” and leaves out “revise” so I guess that is the basis of the argument. Apparently there is case history pointing in this direction. For what it’s worth I still would have prefered clearer definitions in the constitution itself as the constitutional language per se does not obviously lead to this conclusion.
about CA law and precedent to have a clue as to whether the arguments used by either side are sound.
<
p>As I understand it, there are two major lines of attack against Prop 8: the revision vs. amendment one you mentioned, and the one AG Brown is using (some human rights are so fundamental that they may not be denied by popular vote, or something like that). Then there is the secondary issue as to whether the 18,000 lawfully enacted marriages will be annulled if the court finds prop 8 to be constitutional.
<
p>Even though I’ve read a lot of the documents on the Court’s page (some of the friend of court briefs are a real hoot), I am in no way qualified to assess the value of any of the arguments from either side and so will not engage in debate on their pros and cons. I generally rely on Leonard Link’s blog for the lawyer’s-eye-view of LGBT-related legal issues. You may enjoy rifling through his site for related posts, although I don’t think he has a search function, and he is not particularly knowledgeable in CA constitutional law.