Skip to main content

On Prop. 8 in California

Our law starts with the U. S. Constitution. Then state constitutions. Then regular old laws (traffic laws, statutes, etc.). By constitutional definition, a law cannot be passed (by legislature or electoral consent) that stands in conflict with a state Constitution (and by extension, the Federal Constitution). Even McCain stands against a Federal Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage

Prop 22 was found to be in violation of the Equal Protections clause of the California Constitution. That decision is PRECISELY in the definition of the role of the judiciary. That's kinda the point of CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

Prop 8 is an attempt at adjusting the state Constitution to make an end run around the "unconstitutionality" of the language of Prop 22. But, here's the deal... The will of the people DOES NOT TRUMP THE RIGHTS OF THE FEW. That's at the core of our Constitution.

People keep talking about the judges overthrowing the will of the people. Rather, the California Supreme Court refocused the attention of the people to our Constitution and its equal protection defenses.

Before 1977, the civil code in California defined marriage as "...a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."

When this was found to be too vague for some folks they changed it that year to add the words between a man and a woman. However, another section of the civil code allowed California to recognize marriages from other states. Even THAT was too much, so Prop 22 was born... which led us to Prop 8.

The Judiciary is important...

That's why the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision has no force today...

That's why Plessy v. Ferguson was struck down upon JUDICIAL REVIEW...

That's why Brown v. Topeka blasted apart "Separate, but Equal", Jim Crow and segregation...

That's why Loving v. Virginia prevailed and allows couples of different races to marry...

DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG. Prop 8 isn't about kids... it isn't about religion. It's about discrimination.

And it's wrong.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 8

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missy DID HER THANG!

So it's a MAJOR night for some of my faves. Missy. DID. the DAMN. THANG. Side note: Describe J Lo's performance from last year. Can't do it? Thass what I thought. NikkiFree Wiggins  said she will have floor seats if Missy goes on tour. Hell, I wanna be the dude pulling her off stage on the wheeled transport for costume changes. Note to camera operators. When you have a BUILDING FULL of people singing Missy lyrics word for word, DO NOT WASTE CUTS to Taylor Swift's poseur azz shimmying her narrow shoulders in a jacket designed to be editorial. Ma'am, you don't deserve to be featured if you're not a fan. And certainly not multiple times. And CERTAINLYcertainly not in an extended take that took precious seconds from my Missy stanning during Lose Control. Also: Put your tongue back in your mouf, Swift. Back to Missy... Am I the only one who thought that they built the entire VMA set specifically to highlight Missy? That was DAMN-ed impressive. FRfr. I m...

Ashley Todd

Y'all know the story by now. White, female McCain phonebanker, Ashley Todd, leaves Texas to venture North to support her candidate. After a stint in New York, she ends up in Pittsburgh until Thursday, when she lost her effing mind and became Susan Smith Part Deux . The McCain campaign can hardly be blamed for this girl's actions. However, they need to be questioned on their response. Within hours of the incendiary allegations, two things happened. McCain and Palin called Ashley Todd. A press flack from McCain's Pennsylvania operation started pushing the story and adding salacious details. Consider what was at stake here. In a campaign environment already marked with strained racial tensions, Todd's story was potenitally explosive. It would have made a lot more sense to issue a generic statement (like Obama's campaign did). Instead, McCain and Palin lent legitimacy to the allegations (at least for a few hours) by calling her. They vetted Todd's story abou...

Green Book? Nah, Son.

My last Green Book post... Maybe. I was considering all the backlash over the #BrownBook win and feeling pretty good about myself when I realized one of the most glaring lies about the "racial reconciliation" message of this "well-meaning" movie. And it's a BIG lie. I'm 50 years old. Green Book is set in 1962. In other words, six years before I was born. The movie would have us believe that "Lip" Villelonga's "radical transformation" about race is a proxy for how society has changed in those 56 years. Bruh. The ACADEMY AWARDS hasn't even changed that much in the past 30 Years!!! Y'all remember the 62nd Oscars, right? (No you don't). 1989 was a year when movies like Glory, and Field of Dreams, and Born on the Fourth of July (which rewarded Oliver Stone as Best Director), and Dead Poet's Society, and a LOT of really good movies were released. Google it. You won't BELIEVE how...