CNN remembers:
In its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage in California, the [California Supreme Court] justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court’s eyes.
The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”
Enemies of individual freedom and religious liberty — including Mormon, Catholic, and Protestant religious-rightists — chose to ignore the human rights of fellow Californians. Through a campaign of outright lies and unethical activities, religious-right groups conned California voters into approving — by a narrow margin — Proposition 8, which by a simple majority vote nullified human rights and family values of an entire demographic minority of Californians.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, defenders of the freedom to marry contend that Proposition 8 used a ballot-initiative process which is legally restricted to minor changes to the state constitution. According to California law, changes of Proposition 8’s magnitude are supposed to be made only through a careful and deliberative legislative process.
Prop 8 replaced the freedom to marry with a sectarian religious ban that discriminated against the civil marriage and relationship rights of persons who choose not to adhere to the religious biases of one powerful voter bloc.
Today, according to CNN, the high court agreed to hear challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The case will not be heard before May 2009; until then, antifamily religious-rightists continue their efforts to nullify the pre-existing marriages of gay and lesbian couples.
Hat tip: All Facts and Opinion
Related posts
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
This comment has been deleted by the moderator for the following reasons:
Unsubstantiated defamatory accusations
Gross generalizations
Comments by antigay individuals are welcome at this web site. All factual claims, regardless of bias, must be substantiated from reliable sources and must refrain from sweeping generalizations about entire demographic groups.
Comment by Maeleena — November 20, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Why did an obviously discriminatory proposition of any kind make it onto the slates for voting in the first place? Just because of a bunch of signatures on petitions? What if the petitions had proposed an amendment denying women the right to vote because women should remain at home serving their husbands…would a minimum number of signatures have gotten such a proposal onto the ballot?
Comment by DaveTheWave — November 20, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Can gay Californians file individual or class-action lawsuits against specific churches, e.g. the Mormons, for actively working for the denial of their civil rights and liberties? I am not a legal eagle so I am not sure if anyone is doing this already besides the appeal.
Comment by DaveTheWave — December 3, 2008 @ 2:14 pm