Prop 8 Briefs
Mar. 4th, 2009 08:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
athenaltenaI just read through the Amicus Curiae briefs being put in front of the California Supreme Court about overturning Prop 8, and even though I obviously have a horribly biased opinion towards one side, mainly the side that treats me like a person.
A few good quotes from my side that sum up the issue:
"The fundamental rights embodied in our liberty and privacy clauses cannot serve their critical need in our democratic society if they are denied to those minority groups in greatest need of protection."
"Because a 'core element' of the right to marry is 'equal dignity and respect' the deprivation of that right from a suspect class violates the core principles that underlie our constitutional democracy."
"... [Prop 8 should be overturned] Otherwise, the court will leave unpopular minority groups - who have been mercilessly persecuted based on characteristics that have no bearing on their ability to perform or contribute to society - beholden to the whims of an intemperate majority. If... a bare majority of voters may deprive a suspect class of a fundamental right through the initiative process, then voters may propose and enact a constitutional amendment authorizing the segregation of Muslims or lesbians and gay men in public school in order to prevent them from influencing other students."
"Amici suggest that these fears are overblown and that suspect classes should trust that voters will do the "right thing". But history belies this suggestion. Certainly, voters did not do the "right thing" when they passed an initiative amendment that authorized racial discrimination in housing. And history is replete with examples where a majority group sought to deprive an unpopular minority group of its fundamental rights."
"The blanket assurance of the amici that no other fundamental rights would be repealed or narrowed for lesbians and gay men after Proposition 8 provided scant comfort. As described by two amici, the misleading and demeaning tactics used by proponents of Proposition 8 hardly suggest that [they] will limit their efforts to depriving lesbians and gay men of their right to marry."
Also, Ken Starr is full of shit, and his argument lacks any substance beyond "ACTIVIST JUDGES!" type ranting. He also fails to address anything related to oh, a little thing called the 14th Amendment, and basically implies that if the voters say so that one can be disregarded. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
A few good quotes from my side that sum up the issue:
"The fundamental rights embodied in our liberty and privacy clauses cannot serve their critical need in our democratic society if they are denied to those minority groups in greatest need of protection."
"Because a 'core element' of the right to marry is 'equal dignity and respect' the deprivation of that right from a suspect class violates the core principles that underlie our constitutional democracy."
"... [Prop 8 should be overturned] Otherwise, the court will leave unpopular minority groups - who have been mercilessly persecuted based on characteristics that have no bearing on their ability to perform or contribute to society - beholden to the whims of an intemperate majority. If... a bare majority of voters may deprive a suspect class of a fundamental right through the initiative process, then voters may propose and enact a constitutional amendment authorizing the segregation of Muslims or lesbians and gay men in public school in order to prevent them from influencing other students."
"Amici suggest that these fears are overblown and that suspect classes should trust that voters will do the "right thing". But history belies this suggestion. Certainly, voters did not do the "right thing" when they passed an initiative amendment that authorized racial discrimination in housing. And history is replete with examples where a majority group sought to deprive an unpopular minority group of its fundamental rights."
"The blanket assurance of the amici that no other fundamental rights would be repealed or narrowed for lesbians and gay men after Proposition 8 provided scant comfort. As described by two amici, the misleading and demeaning tactics used by proponents of Proposition 8 hardly suggest that [they] will limit their efforts to depriving lesbians and gay men of their right to marry."
Also, Ken Starr is full of shit, and his argument lacks any substance beyond "ACTIVIST JUDGES!" type ranting. He also fails to address anything related to oh, a little thing called the 14th Amendment, and basically implies that if the voters say so that one can be disregarded. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
