Cali SC to rule on Prop 8 on Tuesday

[Goodchild]

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid85513.asp

The California supreme court will rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 on Tuesday.

It was on March 5 that the court heard oral arguments on whether the amendment -- which banned same-sex marriage in the state -- was or was not an illegal constitutional revision.

I'm pretty much dreading this decision, as I imagine 18,000 couples are about to find out their marriages have been nullified.

[Worldtraveller]

Yeah. Unfortunately, it's the major downside of having an easily amended constitution. What's the point of having constitutional rights if a simple majority can just overrule them?

Tyranny of the majority, indeed. I don't know what the courts could say to overturn prop 8, unless there was a technicality somewhere that makes it void.

[Hevvin Machine]

In theory there are different processes for making small additions and major revisions. The prop 8 process was the one for minor additions, if I understand correctly. If a court rules that what happened was instead a major revision the whole thing could be thrown out. Why this decision wasn't made prior to the whole Prop 8 debacle is beyond me. I'm not a Californian much less a legal scholar, I have no idea.
Hev

[Zygote]

Gaaaah - apparently it's okay for a small minority to revoke California State Constitutional rights, but it takes a 2/3 vote to get enough taxes to pay for the services we all use in the state.

Thankfully the existing marriages were not nullified.

How it can be okay to revoke a previously upheld constitutional right is beyond me.

GRRRRRRRRRR

[Worldtraveller]

I think, from what little I read of the ruling, and even less I know about California's amendment process, the court's hands were pretty much tied in terms of having to rule this way. The only way they could have struck down prop 8, I think, is by invoking the equal protection clause, which this prop pretty clearly violates. Not sure about some of the nuances, though.

It appears that it won't last long, and efforts are already under way to pass a new prop that will repeal this one.

[Zygote]

Yeah, I understand from friends who are lawyers that the substance of the ruling was about the technicalities of our ballot proposition process, which SUCKS by the way, and not about the actual rights in questions.

It is so patently unfair to treat two groups of citizens so totally differently that I don't see how it can hold on under the light of reason. The question is: Is there enough reason in the state to shine a bright enough light?