The California Supreme Court is hearing arguments from people hoping to strike down last year’s Proposition 8 referendum, which created an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Basically, the arguments have boiled down to whether a person’s right to marry trumps the rights of California’s citizens to change their constitution. Since the state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, opposed the gay marriage ban, attorney Kenneth Starr, who famously went after Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation, was brought in to argue Prop. 8’s case. He said that Californians have the right to change their constitution in any way they see fit, unless those changes conflict with U.S. Constitution protections. But California’s threshold for passing constitutional amendments is comically low. Because they require only a simple majority, the state constitution has been altered five hundred times since 1911, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution, which has only twenty-seven amendments. So far, the consensus of the court seems to be that while the threshold is too low, it’s up to California’s voters to change that—most likely via another amendment. In addition to being an amateur scientist, I’m also an amateur lawyer, so here’s my completely illegal and most likely misguided advice. Supporters of gay marriage (i.e. humans with a trace of basic decency) should pursue their efforts to overturn Prop. 8 on a federal level. It’s much slower going, and a positive outcome isn’t very likely right now, but the only way to put this issue to rest is to force the federal courts to face up to the fact that gay marriage bans are a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. This would necessarily overturn gay marriage bans in every state, which is why it has little chance of making it through the court. But the times they are a-changing, so you never know. The Supreme Court fairly recently guaranteed federal protection to people who want to practice sodomy in the comfort of their own homes/dungeons, so it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch that they’d offer the same protection to people who want to be bound in holy matrimony first. More details here.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Gay Marriage on Trial
Labels:
Politics
Gay Marriage on Trial_t~~_http://amateurscientistblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/gay-marriage-on-trial.html
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(394)
-
▼
March
(41)
- Google Ghost Hoax
- Wiccans on the Wise
- PETA Holocaust Ads Officially Offensive
- Earth Hour: Success?
- Rep. John Shimkus: Idiot
- Balloons to Venus
- New Hampshire House Votes for Gay Marriage
- Obama Against Legalizing Marijuana Just Cuz
- Teens Prune Their Synapses
- Plan B Now a Viable Plan
- Religious Cling to Life
- Idaholy Shit, This is Stupid
- Canadian Science Minister Gary Goodyear: Idiot
- Spineless Hedgehog Won't be Cured by Woo
- Liquidy Mars
- Dead Sea Scroll Challenge
- The Healthy Smoker Gene
- Arsonist Harassed by Ghosts
- Gay Ducks Kill Species
- Nanotech Gene Therapy
- Asshole Chimp Elevates His Species
- Creationist Plans to Eventually Backfire
- AIDS Denier Gets Payout
- Saudis Lash Geriatric Woman for “Mingling”
- Losing Our Religion
- Obama All About the Stem Cells
- Earth-like Planets Ahoy!
- Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho: Sadistic Idiot
- Colorado State Sen. Dave Schultheis: Blithering, D...
- Gay Marriage on Trial
- What is it Good For?
- Invasion!
- Attack of the (Hidden) Clones
- I Want My Asthma TV
- Sen. Robert Menendez: Douchebag
- The Name Game
- Transvestite Lizards
- LIFE!!!!!...of a Sort
- Women More Religious Than Men
- Conservatives Heart Porn
- The Death Budget
-
▼
March
(41)