In an interesting story in the San Francisco Chronicle, gay rights supporters are seeking to remove the gay marriage ban initiative from the November ballot arguing that the ban's consequences are such that a mere initiative is not in compliance with the existing requirements fro amending the California constitution. The basic argument seems to have some merit. It seems unconscionable that a simple majority vote can be used to wipe away the rights on any minority group that may be unpopular from time to time. It sounds like a therory that Hitler would have loved. If this initiative goes forward EVERY minority group in California is at risk. I would also add that from my reading of legal briefs filed in many of the major gay rights cases, the pro-gay attorneys generally out class the wingnut attorneys every time. I'd even go so far as to say that in Lawrence v. Texas, the amicus briefs filed by the gay haters were not only of very poor quality, but they probably went some distance in convincing the majority of the justices that the anti-gay element were down right nut cases. Some of the briefs were so bad that I'd have been embarrassed to sign my name to them. Religious fanaticism does not equate with legal competence as an attorney - it seems to usually trend in exactly the opposite direction. Here are some story highlights"
*
SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that cannot be legally altered by a voter initiative.
*
In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters. "If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees," said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups. He said the measure would "destabilize our Constitution and our basic government plan ... by establishing that any group may be deprived of equal protection and fundamental rights through a simple majority vote."
*
Backers of the measure quickly denounced the suit. "Equality California and its allies are desperate to evade democracy," said attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. Prop. 22 was the 2000 ballot measure, approved by 61 percent of the voters, that declared same-sex marriages illegal, reaffirming a statute passed by the Legislature in 1977.
No comments:
Post a Comment