?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
04 August 2010 @ 05:02 pm
It's about time!!!  
It took them forever to come to a decision long after the pro/con arguments were over, but California's Supreme Court finally made the right decision:

California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Overturned By State Supreme Court

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, and that issue should never have been allowed to be decided by popular vote.

A portion of the ruling document declares:

A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature. The state does not have an interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose. See Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558, 571 (2003); see also Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 US 1, 15 (1947).

and

THE RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S CHOICE OF MARITAL
PARTNER REGARDLESS OF GENDER
The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause.


The plaintiffs' attorneys were very smart in shaping the Proposition 8 law as a 14th-Amendment violation. A huge step for California today, and it could not be more welcome. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!

 
 
 
Maerhys: • ellen/portiamaerhys on August 5th, 2010 03:23 am (UTC)
\o/
The Coalition For Disturbing Metaphors: Yay!halfshellvenus on August 5th, 2010 05:47 am (UTC)
What pleases me most, aside from what this means for gays and lesbians, is that an unconstitutional amendment was ruled to be unconstitutional.

The idea of codifying discrimination into the state constitution is absolutely reprehensible.

Someone elsewhere noted that, because new evidence cannot be introduced when an appeal is sent to the 9th Circuit Court, it's likely that the ruling will be upheld inside the state. \o/ again!
Maerhysmaerhys on August 5th, 2010 12:34 pm (UTC)
I know! I feel like the planets are aligned correctly again.... it was so plain to see that it was unconstitutional, but.... it happened. But now it's un-happening, lol, and I think there's a real chance that you're right that it will be upheld.
The Coalition For Disturbing Metaphorshalfshellvenus on August 5th, 2010 04:16 pm (UTC)
Oh, it's frustrating how much whining I've heard about how "one man has overturned the will of the voters."

It doesn't matter-- a majority could vote slavery back into existence tomorrow, and it would still be unconstitutional and wrong.

The law of the land (and its intent) in the Constitution trumps voters and state laws.

Let's hope someone successfully undoes the Arizona amendment to harrass "potentially Hispanic" people next.
Maerhysmaerhys on August 5th, 2010 04:17 pm (UTC)
Let's hope someone successfully undoes the Arizona amendment to harrass "potentially Hispanic" people next.

Word, word, word!
wrldpossibility: stock bookshelfwrldpossibility on August 5th, 2010 04:38 am (UTC)
Agreed! As a CA native, I was following this, and am very glad for CA residents. And you're right: it should never have gone to popular vote; I hadn't thought of it that way.
The Coalition For Disturbing Metaphors: Happy Hedgiehalfshellvenus on August 5th, 2010 05:52 am (UTC)
And you're right: it should never have gone to popular vote; I hadn't thought of it that way.

Oh, the number of people raving about "A single judge overturned the will of the majority!" is just infuriating.

You don't get to vote on other people's civil rights, and decide which ones to deny to law-abiding citizens based on whim.

These are people who forget that we would probably still have Jim Crow laws and segregation in parts of this country if the 1963 Civil Rights Act had been put to popular vote.

And? Interracial marriage was outlawed by popular vote in California, and also later overturned by higher courts, for the same reason as Prop 8. As it should have been!