(ALSO: Andy Towle, as usual, compiles an excellent list of Prop 8 news items. )
This is awesome (via email).
More than 40 state legislators, including Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, incoming Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and Speaker Emeritus Fabian Núñez, today filed a friend of the court brief in the case to void Prop 8, claiming it should be invalidated because it was not enacted under the proper procedures for changing the state Constitution.“The citizens of California rely on the Legislature and the courts to safeguard against unlawful discrimination by temporary, and often short-lived, majorities,” said the legislators. “Our state’s few deviations from this duty have proven, with the perspective of historical distance, to be the most abhorrent chapters in our State’s history… The Legislative Amici urge this Court to prevent the momentary passions of a bare majority from compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. Proposition 8′s radical change to our constitutional protections cannot be considered a mere ‘amendment.’ The California Constitution — ‘the ultimate expression of the People’s will’ — requires the involvement of the Legislature in a constitutional revision of this magnitude.”
It continues below the fold.
“I am joining more than 29 members of the Assembly Democratic Caucus in supporting this brief,” said Speaker Bass. “The inalienable right to equal treatment under the law must be protected and upheld.”“I join this brief to overturn Proposition 8 not to thwart the will of the people, but to ensure that the California Constitution’s most cherished principle – equality for all under the law – is upheld,” said Sen. Steinberg.
“An underlying purpose of the constitution is to protect the basic rights of minorities from the majority,” said Senate President pro Tem Don Perata. “The drafters of proposition 8 turned this principle on its head and for the first time in our state history facilitated the writing of discrimination into the constitution. This is a radical and dangerous precedent to set.
“Proposition 8 radically revises our constitutional structure: It singles out a minority group for unequal treatment, precludes our courts from protecting basic rights, and prevents the Legislature from exercising our legal responsibilities,” said Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles). “I join my colleagues in urging the Supreme Court to overturn this discriminatory initiative.”
The friend-of-the-court brief submitted by the legislators supports a petition filed last week in the Supreme Court of California by six same-sex couples, seeking to preserve the fundamental right to marry by stopping the enforcement of Proposition 8. The petition points out that fundamental changes to California’s constitution cannot be made by a simple majority of the voters. Instead, California’s constitution – the ultimate expression of the will of the People of California – says that the fundamental rights of minority groups can only be done away with if 2/3rds of the legislators vote to submit the change to the People or to a constitutional convention. The petition says, and the legislators agree, that this requirement in California’s constitution protects all Californians from the risk of having their fundamental rights taken away by a simple majority vote.




28 Comments


And this is why……it’s a bad idea to put minority rights to a majority vote.
Yes!
True…But, why was it up for vote in the first place then?
Couldn’t it have been stopped beforehand for the very same reason?
They tried to stop it…Virtually the same papers were filed with the court asking to stop the initiative from being on the ballot….the court basically came back saying they could only address the issue if it was an issue ie. if the initiative passed.
The California initiative processThe California initiative process is broken.
No, there is no mechanism (as far as I know) for stopping one of these measures before they get onto the ballot. Not just for measures that are unconstitutional as this one is, but we get ballot measures that are badly written, that duplicate the intent of existing laws – all kinds of bad propositions get onto the ballot. If they can gather the required signatures, it gets onto the ballot. And gathering the required number of signatures, increasingly, seems to be a simple matter of paying professional signature-gatherers to go collect them.
I believe it was last year that we had a ballot measure registered, after which the Legislature enacted a law that fulfilled the exact intent of the ballot measure, rendering it superfluous. But there was no way to take the ballot measure off, so the original promoters of the ballot ended up urging people to vote against it!
Thanks for clarifying…In that case, gogo o/
This would be SWEETIf CA legislators pressing the CA Supreme Court get Prop 8 tossed, then the Mormons spent 22 Million for NOTHING and STILL face a total Utah boycott for P*SSING US OFF!
Who is Telling The Truth about Their Objectives?The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage groups ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a “lie.”
The same groups now charging it’s a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not – were just in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?
gay people do exist… shocking isn’t it?Do you want your children to grow up in a huge bubble where you can control every bit of information going in and out?
No one is trying to present age inappropriate stuff to those kids, and if parents feel strong about it, what keeps them from just sitting down and talking to their kids about their own beliefs and views?
Are you afraid that teaching about realities of life at school will cause irreparable damage?
This is Great News. I just hope it works. I know it makes 100% commonsense that Minority Rights should never be put to a majority vote.
I hope that it gets pointed out in clear language, that there is a difference between Civil and Religious Marriage.
See here’s the thingNo one is REQUIRING schools to teach about gay people or gay couples. But what happens, and this will happen more often, when a child has gay parents and is picked on by the other kids for it?
Should the faculty ignore it since, apparently, we’re not real people? Or should they be prepared for this in case such a thing happens?
Now, on the other part of your absurdity, no, they don’t have a constitutional right to opt their children out, but they can do it nonetheless, no one will stop them (and if someone does, the parents should be able to take legal action). We’ll just feel sorry for their children having such parents raise them.
Telling the Truth, There was nothing in the Language of Prop 8 stating that schools would be forced to teach Same-Sex Marriage.
Now it is true that Same-Sex Marriages do exist. No one can deny that. What some parents want is to teach their children that the only kind of Marriage that exists is Straight Marriage.
Funny part is, the people who are fighting about not wanting to tell their children that Same-Sex Marriage doesn’t exist, are the Same bunch that has their panties in a twist about many Muslims not teaching that Israel is a State.
Interesting how different religions want to teach children fantacy. And it is also the same that many on the religious right don’t want the homos to exist. Many Muslims don’t want Israelis to exist.
(I am in full support of Israel)
Does one person’s religious belief trump me being able to breathe?
Ack! I hate it when idiots post only partial ‘supportive’I get the Troll but goddamn be a fricken’ descent writer! WIth that kind a ‘cut and paste’ quote to back up your thesis would have gotten an F in a college writing class for simply distorting the original meaning of the whole passages! I means seriously, Bot, I can spell any word I want by cutting and pasting words from a magazine!
Also to note under what context do the three quotes are from????? I can whip up a passage from George Orwell’s book Animal Farm and be just as supportive for your thesis!
You want to know who’s lying. There’s a really simply way to disprove your disposition. GO and find a Californian kid who grew up on the Californian public education system and ask them if they were taught straight marriage! Guess what? NONE. Why? Because California’s public school system do not teach morality–that’s up to the parents. Schoosl teach the Constitution and laws. Also you can obtain ANY school’s curriculum and search for “marriage” to your heart’s content. Oh, and none of that “respect all relationship” crap. It says what it says, RESPECT. Doesn’t say teach about gay marriage or straight marriage okay.
IF you think your argument is actually validating then how come the Supreme Court rejected as a basis when they legalized gay marriage? Do you know what they said? They said How the hell does education have to do with legality of Gay marriages? That’s apples and bananas! Crazy! Sorry for the rant but I’d rather be off arguing someone who says that gay marriage attacks their marriage; at least this is about marriage! Seesh, what’s next gay marriage destroys the US army? Give me a break!
Don’t feed the trollsThey’re just angry ever since Jerry Falwell called back via Ouija Board screaming about how the white light was actually a gay disco party. Rev. Gary Aldridge, however, was happy to report via another line that the disco party had enough wetsuits and dildos to keep him entertained for several centuries. The former pastor of Montgomery, AL’s Thorington Road Baptist Church was busy with a can of Cheez Whiz and sheets of plastic wrap when approached for comment.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a…
I hope I am alive when we elect the first Lesbian President.How I would love to see the Rainbow flag fly on top of the White House. And I know it would drive the religious right bonkers.
okYEEHAW! Finally some intelligentsia is beating the drum in the Great State of California! I am proud of you guys and gals! Rock on!
Is it still called the California Constitution?I thought that it was called “The Book of Mormon” these days.
Oh, and though I do want this reversed, I forsee a huge fundie backlash when that happens, “will of the people” sort of thing, even when the people are naught but a fear-stoked mob.
They tried to stop itI understand that Equality California tried to stop prop 8 from ever getting to a ballot I read Shannon Mintor’s article, what I don’t understand is that if the fundamental rights of minority groups can only be done away with if 2/3rds of the legislators vote to submit the change to the People or to a constitutional convention.
The Cali Supreme Court knew this Why so didn’t they turn prop 8 down and not allow it to go to a ballot ?
Why didn’t the court tell the lawyers for the yes on 8 camp that you have got to go through the Satate Legislator you can’t get there from here ?
Regards
Brandi Parker
SWVA Rep Equality Va
Correction.It would drive the religious right even more bonkers.
An elected gay premier is more likely to happen in Europe first. Europe has already had dozens of unelected gay or bisexual premiers in the past (some of them quite prominent, such as Julius Caesar of Rome, James I/IV of England/Scotland and Louis XIII of France) and at least one who would now be considered either trans or genderqueer – Elagabalus of Rome. Also the idea of an EU or EFTA state electing an openly-gay premier isn’t ground-breaking despite never having happened yet: Bertrand Delanoë is likely to run for the French Presidency in in 2012 and stands a reasonable chance of getting in, while Klaus Wowereit of Germany has been suggested as a possible future Chancellor but has turned the offer down. There has also been a gay man on the European Commission, Lord Peter Mandelson (the Commission is a group-premiership similar to that of the Swiss Federal Council) and western Europe in particular has a lot of other prominent openly-gay politicians including Lord Waheed Alli, Pim Fortuyn, Anders Gåsland, André Oktay Dahl, Birgitt Bender, Ben Bradshaw, Per-Kristian Foss and Volker Beck. However there have only been a few trans or genderqueer politicians – I only know of three (one British, one Spanish, one Italian) of which only one was elected to national parliament, so for me the real coup would be an elected EU or EFTA premier who is trans or genderqueer.
there’s a huge differencebetween pointing out the world around them, telling kids “hey these things exist.”
And pointing to the world around them, telling kids “this is the right way to do things.”
Merely telling kids “yes, some families have two mommies” and letting them know they should not attack people for being different isn’t some crazy radical indoctrination.
it’s the spirit of America.
Some people think blacks shouldn’t vote, shouldn’t have been freed, and aren’t equal to whites. Should those people be able to tell schools: “I don’t want you mentioning anything about black people in front of my children.”
Parents are welcome to teach their kids any values they want, but if you put them in a public school, with other kids, you can’t expect them to be sheltered from reality. You can’t muzzle gay kids, or the kids of gay parents just so one kid (or a thousand kids) values don’t get any contrary messsaging.
Is you faith so very fragile, so very shallow, so very insecure that it can’t sit nicely, quietly, respectfully along side reality?
Many Hebrews believe eating pork is wrong. Very wrong. Morally wrong. Should those parents be allowed to tell teachers “Don’t tell my children that hotdogs exist!”
Sorry, public schools prepare children for the real world, not someone’s ideal, but the real world. They teach them the science that governs our universe, the laws the govern out land, and the people that exist within it’s borders.
It’s up to parents to teach morals. And it’s up to parents to tell their kids, “not everyone agrees with our morals” rather than expecting everyone else to censor themselves.
It’s interesting that some Christians can’t allow anyone, even their own children, to make educated decisions. They’d prefer to censor anything that doesn’t agree with their values, even reality.
It is a weak faith that cannot coexist with others.
a little bit of correctionI thought that it was called “The Book of Mormon” these days.
I thought it was called the “bible” /laugh
In all seriousness, it’s not just the mormons. It’s evangelicals and upper hierarchy Catholics too. A mormon girl that I talked to about it told me that Mormons really didn’t make up a lot of the religiously inclined here in the united states. It’s just the fact that they have so much money that it makes them a powerful force.
Thank pz…..Talking with Yes on H8 friend yesterday, who voted "Not to teach people to be gay in school." Yep that was how her congregation spun the commercial.
sent her your reply…as mine was quite heated!
YES, Yes, yes…oh sweet yes…
Background?Can any Californians tell us what the brief was specifically referring to here? Is it the ban on inter-racial marriage?
Anyone know who the 40+ legislators are?I can’t find any info, nor the friend of the court brief filed with the CA Supreme Court.
And for all those who think elected officials will never support marriage equality….just want you to know there are at least 40…although more than that voted for the last gender neutral marriage law here in CA which the gov vetoed.
Not Just MarriageThe inter-racial marriage ban wasn’t the only discriminatory law California has had on its books – there have been laws discriminating against east Asians in other ways, such as the California Alien Land Law of 1913 (which was itself dependent upon the racially-discriminatory Federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and Naturalization Act of 1790).
Found it….Finally today, the CA Supreme Court website has ALL the info and pdf links on the home page for the 3 new prop8 lawsuits…
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/co…
Including the letter from the legislators. I found out what I wanted to know…my Assemblyman Kerkorian is one the letter.
My state senator is ending his term and not signed on, but I know my state senator just elected to replace would be on their if she was already sworn in…
Blacks and Latinos….BTW:
CA Assembly Speaker Karen Bass is African American as are: Mark-Ridley Thomas and Sandre Swanson.
Senate President pro Tem Don Perata and Speaker Emeritus Fabian Núñez are hispanic as are; Ron Calderon, Gilbert Cedillo, Alex Padilla, Gloria Romero, Anna Caballero, Charles Calderon, Mike Feuer, Felipe Fuentes, Edward Hernandez, and Jose Solorio.
They all signed the friend of the court brief.