tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post6366260260986420840..comments2024-03-27T08:39:28.807-06:00Comments on Wash Park Prophet: Around The NationAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-33185727545963557502008-11-06T08:53:00.000-07:002008-11-06T08:53:00.000-07:00In any other state, Prop 8 would be a done deal. ...In any other state, Prop 8 would be a done deal. There is one precedent in California however (drawn in part from a U.S. Supreme Court case from Colorado involving gay rights), that says that not all measures can be amendment via the initative process. It is a long shot, but we'll see.<BR/><BR/>Most states allow constitutional amendments by majority vote. Eastern states make it hard to get initiatives on the ballot (if not impossible). Western states make it easy (Colorado is easiest of them all and California is close).Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-63963330628459097542008-11-06T08:31:00.000-07:002008-11-06T08:31:00.000-07:00That's the question raised by the suits: can a sim...That's the question raised by the suits: can a simple amendment supersede the equal protection clause? The May ruling put sexual orientation in the same category as gender, race, and creed, so it's likely that the court will rule proposition eight to be improper, that it should be subject to the more rigorous process of a revision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-49846630372850793902008-11-05T22:35:00.000-07:002008-11-05T22:35:00.000-07:00Since proposition 8 is an amendment, doesn't that ...Since proposition 8 is an amendment, doesn't that by definition supercede the pre-existing equal protection clause?<BR/><BR/>It does indeed sound like it's too easy to amend the California Constitution (as it is too easy to amend the Colorado Constitution).<BR/><BR/>(Recall that my position on gay marriage is that the government should not be in the business of marriage at all -- i.e. ban all government marriages, and relegate it to the churches and/or the lawyer-written pre-nups)Michael Malakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10007582156392845677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-62950007586286022982008-11-05T20:07:00.000-07:002008-11-05T20:07:00.000-07:00I was surprised that amending the California const...I was surprised that amending the California constitution required a simple majority. Gay marriage would almost certainly have been banned by now in Massachusetts if it was that easy. The LA Times article, "<A HREF="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaylegal6-2008nov06,0,220763.story" REL="nofollow">Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8</A>," discusses the distinction between an amendment and a revision:<BR/><BR/>"Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.<BR/><BR/>'The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it,' she said. 'Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote.'"<BR/><BR/>The majority opinion in the May ruling was based on the equal protection clause, calling sexual orientation, "like gender, race, and religion--a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment." Whether you agree with the ruling or not, I don't see how the same court could conclude that proposition eight doesn't constitute a revision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com