![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
state Constitutional law fail
Here it is: California Constitution | Wikipedia article
Proposition 8 opinion is here
All the way back in undergrad, we discussed at length the dangers of having an easily editable state Constitution. Chickens have now come home to roost.
A fundamental right has now been decided by initiative. This is a horrible precedent independent of one's views on gay marriage. This is a face-slap to the concept of equal protection of rights.
However, let's be clear. This is not the Court's fault. They are ruling accurately on the Constitutional law in question.
This is the fault of the people who sponsored Prop. 8 in the first place.
I can now, under current Constitutional law, author, qualify and campaign for an LCA which defines "hate speech" as any speech which claims the existence of a Supreme Being which disapproves of homosexual behavior. If this initiative passed, claiming that a Supreme Being disapproves of homosexuality would be designated "hate speech" in the California Constitution.
I have not deprived anyone of freedom of speech, as there are no criminal penalties. I have merely designated certain speech as hateful, just as Proposition 8 designates a certain relationship (between a man and a woman) as marriage.
It is obvious that this burdens freedom of speech and imperils freedom of religion. Similarly, I hope it is obvious that its inverse as in Prop. 8 (labeling marriage as between one man and one woman) burdens freedom of association and imperils protected degrees of intimate relationships.
Also, the Murky gets it wrong again.
"California Supreme Court had little choice but to uphold Proposition 8"
Baloney. They could have grasped the nettle and called it a distinction without a difference, allowing the label to stand but not giving it any power. Instead, they used Prop 8 as an siren call to this most disturbing feature of the California Constitution -- the power to overturn fundamental rights by popular vote.
Unpopular perhaps, but I'm glad they did.
Proposition 8 opinion is here
All the way back in undergrad, we discussed at length the dangers of having an easily editable state Constitution. Chickens have now come home to roost.
A fundamental right has now been decided by initiative. This is a horrible precedent independent of one's views on gay marriage. This is a face-slap to the concept of equal protection of rights.
However, let's be clear. This is not the Court's fault. They are ruling accurately on the Constitutional law in question.
This is the fault of the people who sponsored Prop. 8 in the first place.
I can now, under current Constitutional law, author, qualify and campaign for an LCA which defines "hate speech" as any speech which claims the existence of a Supreme Being which disapproves of homosexual behavior. If this initiative passed, claiming that a Supreme Being disapproves of homosexuality would be designated "hate speech" in the California Constitution.
I have not deprived anyone of freedom of speech, as there are no criminal penalties. I have merely designated certain speech as hateful, just as Proposition 8 designates a certain relationship (between a man and a woman) as marriage.
It is obvious that this burdens freedom of speech and imperils freedom of religion. Similarly, I hope it is obvious that its inverse as in Prop. 8 (labeling marriage as between one man and one woman) burdens freedom of association and imperils protected degrees of intimate relationships.
Also, the Murky gets it wrong again.
"California Supreme Court had little choice but to uphold Proposition 8"
Baloney. They could have grasped the nettle and called it a distinction without a difference, allowing the label to stand but not giving it any power. Instead, they used Prop 8 as an siren call to this most disturbing feature of the California Constitution -- the power to overturn fundamental rights by popular vote.
Unpopular perhaps, but I'm glad they did.
no subject