Tag Archives: California Supreme Court

Pink triangle proposition won’t become law in California, but it’s the thought that counts

History repeats itself. Above are shown victims of fascist Nazi Germany’s persecution of accused gay men, tens of thousands of whom were required to wear an inverted pink triangle marking them as non-heterosexual. A theofascist California lawyer has submitted to the state’s attorney general’s office a ballot proposition to “put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method” “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification.”

An Orange County, California, lawyer has paid the $200 filing fee to start the process for his “Sodomite Suppression Act,” which would, at its most merciful, prevent any non-heterosexual from being a public school teacher, a police officer, an elected public official or any other public employee, and which would, at worst, “put [non-heterosexuals] to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

My reading of the fairly short “act” gives me the impression that the sentiment is not entirely unlike the Catholick Church’s or the Mormon cult’s: Merely having same-sex attraction is bad, but actually acting upon it is the worst, because the fuller phrasing of the “act” is: “the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

In a shout-out to Vladimir Putin, the “act” also mandates that:

No person shall distribute, perform, or transmit sodomistic propaganda directly or indirectly by any means to any person under the age of majority. Sodomistic propaganda is defined as anything aimed at creating an interest in or an acceptance of human sexual relations other than between a man and a woman. Every offender shall be fined $1 million per occurrence, and/or imprisoned up to 10 years, and/or expelled from the boundaries of the state of California for up to life.

Although this modest proposal first emerged weeks ago, this past week it has hit the media as “news.”

The legal consensus is that California Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose office is the first stop for any ballot initiative in the state, does not have the legal authority to shut down the “Sodomite Suppression Act,” even though it patently violates the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. The legal consensus also is that the office of the California secretary of state, the second and final stop for a state ballot initiative, does not have the legal authority to stop the “Sodomite Suppression Act.”

Of course, the right-wing lawyer who has proposed the “act,” a Matt McLaughlin, has cleared the easiest, lowest bar in the California ballot initiative process: he paid his $200 to the state’s attorney general’s office to obtain his ballot title and ballot summary, which he first must obtain from the attorney general’s office before he may begin to collect the 365,880 valid signatures of registered voters in order to qualify his ballot initiative for its placement on the November 2016 statewide ballot.

Collecting that many signatures would require some resources; McLaughlin would have to print his own petitions in a strict format dictated by state law and would have to get the bodies to go out and gather all of those signatures, be they paid or be they volunteers or some mixture of both.

Vox.com posits that the “[California state] Supreme Court is likely to step in and stop the [ballot] measure, particularly if the proposal gets enough signatures to qualify for the ballot,” but doesn’t cite its source of this assertion.

Oddly, though, neither Vox.com nor Slate.com, in their explainers on the “Sodomite Suppression Act,” notes that even though the majority of California’s voters might adopt a ballot initiative (for which only a simple majority is required), a federal court always can rule that the ballot initiative violates the U.S. Constitution (and, to my knowledge, the state’s Supreme Court can rule that a ballot initiative violates the state’s Constitution).

There is precedent for this: The hateful, anti-immigrant California Proposition 187, passed by the state’s voters by a disturbing 59 percent to 41 percent in November 1994, was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge in 1997 (indeed, most of the law never even went into effect, because the same federal judge had imposed a permanent injunction on most portions of the law in December 1994).

And in November 2008, California’s voters narrowly passed (52 percent to 48 percent) the hateful, anti-non-heterosexual Proposition 8, which then was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2010. (The federal judge’s ruling was challenged legally but ultimately was left intact by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2013, and same-sex marriages in California have been legal since then.)

The California Supreme Court declined to prevent the unconstitutional Proposition H8 from appearing on the ballot, so it would be interesting to see what the court would do if it were asked to prevent the “Sodomite Suppression Act” from appearing on the ballot. Indeed, while Prop H8 “only” sought to outlaw same-sex marriages, the “Sodomite Suppression Act” calls for the Nazi-style wholesale slaughter of non-heterosexuals who ever have acted upon their same-sex attraction.

But, Wikipedia notes, citing a 2006 California Supreme Court case, “As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure’s substantive validity.” In other words, the state Supreme Court apparently believes that voters get to weigh in on a ballot measure first, and the constitutionality of the measure, if it is passed, is to be hashed out in the courts only after the measure’s passage.

Thank Goddess for the federal court system and its ability (indeed, its duty) to weigh in on whether laws passed by the states’ legislatures or by the states’ voters violate the U.S. Constitution, as history has shown that even the states’ highest courts are fairly toothless, by choice or by design (to my knowledge, the states’ highest courts have jurisdiction only over their states’ constitutions, and state judges don’t have the legal authority to determine whether a state law violates the U.S. Constitution*).

True, it took years for the odious and unconstitutional California Prop H8 finally to be undone by the federal court system (that said, while today same-sex marriage is legal in California and in 35 other states, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage once and for all), but, even if the “Sodomite Suppression Act” were to make it to the November 2016 California ballot (unlikely, given the amount of money that is required to get anything on the statewide ballot in the nation’s most populous state) and pass (which is highly unlikely in this blue state), a federal court (if not also the California Supreme Court) immediately would halt its implementation, of course. Not a single bullet would be fired into the head of an accused non-heterosexual (not by the state government of California, anyway).

But, you know, it’s certainly the thought that counts, isn’t it?

Apparently wingnutty lawyer Matt McLaughlin is unlikely to be disbarred by the state for his ballot proposition. While proposing a law that blatantly violates the U.S. Constitution by proposing the wholesale murder of an entire class of human beings amply demonstrates McLaughlin’s blatant moral turpitude (if not also his blatant incompetence) as a lawyer, whose duty is to uphold the state and federal constitutions, not propose to violate them, McLaughlin should, in my book, be disbarred, but apparently he will be able to hide behind his First-Amendment “right” to propose, Nazi-style, that a whole class of people be executed.

Still, if you believe, like I do, that McLaughlin should be disbarred, you can sign, as I have, an online petition calling for his disbarment by clicking here.

Even if McLaughlin were just pulling an attention-grabbing stunt, his “Sodomite Suppression Act,” whether he means it seriously or not — to be safe, I assume that he is quite serious** — is hate speech, and lawyers who practice hate speech (which does not warrant First-Amendment protection, since it so obviously so easily can result in violence, even death, or other injury against its intended targets) should be disbarred.

I might thank McLaughlin, however, for demonstrating quite publicly that his Nazi-like mentality, although a minority mentality, still exists. And shudderingly, I surmise that while many if not most homophobes wouldn’t go so far as to execute an accused non-heterosexual individual with their own hands, the worst of the homophobes, if such execution were routine even here in the United States of America, wouldn’t much care and would do little to nothing to stop it.

*Alabama state Supreme Court Chief “Justice” Roy Moore, for instance, has claimed, quite incorrectly, that he has the legal authority and ability to override and ignore a federal judge’s ruling on the federal constitutionality of same-sex marriage in the state. Moore was removed from the post of Alabama Supreme Court chief “justice” in 2003 for having ignored another federal judge’s ruling on another federal constitution issue, but he was not disbarred, as he should have been, and thus he legally was allowed to run for the post again, which, insanely, is filled by popular election in the backasswards state of Alabama.

**Not much is known of McLaughlin, but the San Francisco Chronicle notes that “McLaughlin, a lawyer since 1998, tried to qualify an initiative in 2004 that would have added the King James Bible as a literature textbook in California public schools. He was quoted at the time as saying he was promoting classroom use of the Bible for its ‘rich use of the English language’ and was not trying to indoctrinate students.”

So McLaughlin apparently has a history of toxic, theofascist fundamentalism and apparently wishes for a theocratic state, much like the members of ISIS, whose mentality is the same but whose bible is different.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Supremes give me reverse November 2008 déjà vu

Updated below (last on Friday, June 28, 2013)

For this progressive Californian, this week feels like an uncanny reversal of Election Day 2008: In November 2008, we Californians saw our nation’s first non-all-white president* elected, a historical milestone — but with the narrow (52-48) passage of Proposition H8, which wrote homophobia into the California state Constitution by banning same-sex marriage, we non-heterosexual Californians were stripped of our constitutionally guaranteed right to marry, which the California Supreme Court earlier that year had ruled was ours.**

Yesterday, in a typically 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act, claiming that the act’s provisions were too outdated, despite the fact that Congress had renewed it overwhelmingly in 2006, which wasn’t all that fucking long ago.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg nailed it on the head when she remarked, “Throwing out [U.S. Justice Department] pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes [to voting laws] is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

While I surmise that Congress will restore the Voting Rights Act in the future, that won’t happen, of course, with the current wingnut-dominated U.S. House of Representatives. Indeed, media reports are that the fascists of the red states, in light of this new U.S. Supreme Court decision, are working fast and furiously to reinstate their voter suppression laws (previously shot down by the Justice Department) just in time for the 2014 midterm elections.

I have to wonder, of course, if that was the goal of the wingnuts on the high court: To help the struggling Repugnican Tea Party in the next national elections. Hey, they’ve certainly involved themselves in election-fixing before, which even former U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan and who, with four other like-minded “justices,” put George W. Bush in office, has expressed a potential problem with.

Yesterday was a giant leap backwards for the equal human and civil rights of non-whites, and was yet another stain on our nation caused by yet another 5-4 vote by the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court, right up there with the court’s 5-4 coronation of George W. Bush as president in late 2000 even though he’d lost the election by more than a half-million popular votes and even though the pivotal state of Florida clearly had been stolen as a “victory” for Bush and with the court’s 5-4 Citizens United decision, which reinforced the bogus concept that corporations are just like individual people, and that just like individual people, corporations have First Amendment rights.

It’s mind-blowing to ponder the fact that the voting rights for which so many Americans fought and even died were eliminated at the stroke of the poisoned pen of just one right-wing U.S. Supreme Court justice. (Yet at the same time I suppose that it’s a little encouraging to know that it was only a 5-4 vote, that only one “justice” made the difference.)

I hope that the backlash against the right wing’s ongoing attempt to suppress voters is considerable. Generally speaking, the right-wing traitors among us win little battles here and there, but over time, they continue to lose the war. They stymie and delay progress as much as they can, but progress still marches on, and the haters go down in history as the haters that they are or were.

But today, unlike in November 2008, there was good news for us non-heterosexuals when the US. Supreme Court ruled, 5-4 (of course), that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed in 1996, is unconstitutional, as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws (duh).

This ruling means that no same-sex couple that has been married in a state with legalized same-sex marriage may be denied any of the federal benefits of marriage that are enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples.

However, this also means that same-sex couples in most states will not have the same rights as do same-sex couples in other states (those states that have adopted legalized same-sex marriage), which, of course, is a patently unfair and thus an untenable situation.

Yes, the nation’s high court, while it struck down DOMA, by yet another 5-4 vote refused to touch Prop H8, ruling that, as Reuters puts it, “supporters of [Prop H8] did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that struck the law down.” Thus, the court apparently very intentionally avoided directly ruling on whether or not any state may constitutionally outlaw same-sex marriage, leaving same-sex marriage, for now, as an untenable issue of “states’ rights.”

Because the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t touch Prop H8, the lower federal courts’ rulings that Prop H8 is unconstitutional (because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment) stand, and my understanding is that this means that California will have same-sex marriage again, as it did briefly in 2008 (between the effective date of the California Supreme Court’s ruling for same-sex marriage and the effective date of the same-sex-marriage-nixing Prop H8) — but, I understand, there’s more legal wrangling ahead as to what, exactly, the Supremes’ refusal to touch Prop H8 means for California.

It was cowardly, irresponsible and short-sighted of the court to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment but to then refuse to rule that accordingly, no state may outlaw same-sex marriage on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment, but apparently today’s rulings were, pathetically, the best that we could get from this right-wing court.

Of course it would have been nice if either or both of today’s high-court rulings on DOMA and Prop H8 (the court’s cowardly refusal to issue a ruling on Prop H8 was the court’s “ruling” on Prop H8) had been 6-3 or even 7-2 (or hell, even 8-1 or 9-0), but the right-wing homo-haters have no credibility in (predictably) calling the 5-4 decisions the “tyranny” of the U.S. Supreme Court against the American majority when a series of recent nationwide polls clearly show that a clear majority of Americans favor same-sex marriage.

And those fascistic haters who claim that to overturn Prop H8 is to overturn the will of California’s voters conveniently ignore the two facts that (1) any ballot measure passed by a majority of any state’s voters can be overturned by a federal court if that court deems it to be unconstitutional (Civics 101 — duh) and that (2) while Prop H8 passed in November 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, polls show now that around 60 percent of Californians support same-sex marriage; were Californians to vote again on the issue again today, same-sex marriage would pass by a decisive margin. Prop H8 no longer is the will of the majority of California’s voters.

So: Today we can celebrate a significant although incomplete victory for same-sex couples who desire legalized marriage and the rights (and, yes, the responsibilities) that come with legalized marriage.

But we need to fight like hell to regain the ground that we just lost where voting rights are concerned, and we need to fight like hell to gain full marriage equality for same-sex couples in all 50 states.

The U.S. Constitution’s demands for fairness and equality demand that we do so.

*True, Barack Obama (whom I don’t really consider “black” but consider to be of mixed race) turned out to be a huge disappointment, a George W. Bush Lite, but I did cast my vote for him in November 2008 before I knew how his presidency was going to unfold. I voted for him in 2008 at least in part because I thought that it was great to be able to vote for the first non-all-white president in U.S. history. (In 2012 I could not, in good conscience, vote for Obama again; I voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein.)

**And this was no radically left-wing California Supreme Court; when it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2008, most of its justices at that time had been appointed by Repugnican, not by Democratic, governors.

Update (Wednesday, June 26, 2013): Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown has instructed the California Department of Public Health, which comes under his authority, to direct all of California’s 58 counties to begin to issue same-sex marriage licenses as soon as is legally possible, which might take a month or so.

Update (Friday, June 28, 2013): The homo-hating wingnuts here in California (and elsewhere) are going apoplectic over this (from The Associated Press today):

The four plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban tied the knot [today], just hours after a federal appeals court freed gay couples to obtain marriage licenses in the state for the first time in 4 1/2 years.

State Attorney General Kamala Harris presided at the San Francisco City Hall wedding of Kris Perry and Sandy Stier as hundreds of supporters looked on and cheered. The couple sued to overturn the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban along with Jeff Katami and Paul Zarrillo, who married at Los Angeles City Hall 90 minutes later with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presiding. …

Although the couples fought for the right to wed for years, their weddings came together in a flurry when a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order [this] afternoon dissolving, “effective immediately,” a stay it had imposed on gay marriages while the lawsuit challenging the ban advanced through the courts.

Sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, called the appeals court’s swift action “outrageous.” Under Supreme Court rules, the losing side in a legal dispute has 25 days to ask the high court to rehear the case, and Proposition 8’s backers had not yet announced whether they would do so. …

Call the homo-haters a waaaaaambulance! Anyway, the AP story continues:

The [U.S.] Supreme Court said earlier this week that it would not finalize its ruling in the Proposition 8 case until after the 25-day period, which ends July 21. But San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who joined the two couples in the lawsuit, said [today] that the Ninth Circuit panel had the power to lift the stay it imposed.

“The fact of the matter is the only thing holding up the weddings was the stay that the Ninth Circuit had in place,” Herrera said. “The fact that there is a separate 25-day period allowing the petition to go for a rehearing is separate and apart from that stay.”

[California Gov. Jerry] Brown directed California counties to start performing same-sex marriages immediately after the appeals court’s order. A memo from the Department of Public Health said “same-sex marriage is again legal in California” and ordered county clerks to resume issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. …

Anyway: Wow. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s handed-down decision on Wednesday not to touch the Prop H8 case, we Californians had figured that there would be a wait of at least around a month for same-sex marriages to resume in California; we didn’t expect them to resume this quickly.

I misspoke above, by the way: The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday did not uphold both federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 decision that Prop H8 violated the U.S. Constitution and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in February 2012 to uphold Walker’s original ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday vacated the circuit court’s ruling, which then reverted the matter of Prop H8 to Walker’s original 2010 ruling.

Frankly, Vaughn Walker, who is now retired, is a hero to me. Yes, he is a gay man, and yes, the homo-haters tried (but failed) to have his 2010 pro-same-sex-marriage ruling invalidated because he’s gay (apparently only [presumedly] straight white men can be fair and impartial judges, you see), but Walker is no left-wing radical: He was nominated as a federal judge first by Ronald Reagan and then by George H. W. Bush, and apparently his political leanings are conservative-libertarian.

I consider Walker’s ruling to be a landmark document in U.S. gay, lesbian and bisexual history. You can read it, if you want, here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Drum roll: My Prop H8 predictions

Correction: Judge Vaughn Walker was appointed by George H.W. Bush, not by George W. Bush. (The Los Angeles Times had reported just “George Bush.”) Also, I should note that Walker is openly gay, which the wingnuts should have a field day with. 

So later today, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker is to decide whether or not California’s Proposition 8 — which in November 2008 reversed the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that same-sex marriage must be allowed under the California Constitution — violates the United States Constitution.

My prediction is that Walker will rule that Prop H8 indeed violates the U.S. Constitution.

One of the lawyers who argued before Vaughn that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution was former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative who fought for George W. Bush in Bush vs. Gore, the God-awful 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that crowned George W. Bush “president” even though he had lost the popular vote and lost the state of Florida to his Democratic opponent Al Gore.

And Walker was appointed by George W. Bush.

And lest you think that the California Supreme Court is a bunch of swingin’, dope-smokin’ libbies — I mean, we are talking about California, after all — six of the seven California Supreme Court justices were appointed by Repugnican governors and only one of them by a Democratic governor, and in May 2008 the court voted 4-3 that under the state’s constitution, same-sex marriage must be allowed.

So along came Prop 8, funded mostly by the Mormon cult and mostly from Utah, which in November 2008 changed the California Constitution to add the same-sex marriage prohibition to it.

However, no state may enact a law, even a constitutional revision, that violates the U.S. Constitution. (A civics lesson that the fucktards in Arizona don’t get yet, but will.)

However Vaughn decides, his ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am not familiar with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but my prediction is that the circuit court will uphold Vaughn’s ruling that finds that Prop 8 does indeed violate the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is a lot less predictable.

Most people would assume that of course the Supremes would quash same-sex marriage, but it was in 2003 (in Lawrence vs. Texas) that the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, struck down sodomy laws — that is, the nation’s highest court prohibited any state from making consensual sexual acts between adults in privacy illegal, ruling that such restrictions are unconstitutional — when it had been only in 1986, in Bowers vs. Hardwick, that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, 5-4, that sodomy laws (apparently especially those targeting non-heterosexuals) were not unconstitutional. (In Lawrence, the court concluded that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.”)

I certainly do not intend to equate same-sex marriage with sodomy, like the wingnuts’ signage does, but I mean to point out that the U.S. Supreme Court does reverse itself and that it can be unpredictable — and that even conservative jurists sometimes do the right thing.

I give it a little bit more than a 50-percent chance that when it goes to the current U.S. Supreme Court (by which time we will have Justice Elena Kagan on board, for better or for worse), the court will rule that to prohibit same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

If the current U.S. Supreme Court does not rule that way, I give it less time than it took between Bowers and Lawrence for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule again, this time in favor of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage rights in all 50 states is just a matter of time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bittersweet déjà vu all over again

President Barack Obama announces federal appeals court judge ...

Associated Press photo

Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s pick for the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, would be the first Latino and only the third woman on the nation’s highest court. Her nomination to the court was announced yesterday — the same day that the California Supreme Court announced that it was upholding Proposition 8, which stripped non-heterosexuals of their constitutional right to equality.

On November 4, we non-heterosexuals in California received bittersweet news: We had gained the nation’s first black president — and Repugnican rule of the White House was finally fucking over — but also on Election Day, Proposition 8 stripped us of our equal human and civil rights that the California Supreme Court had ruled in May 2008 were ours.

Yesterday we also got bittersweet news: We learned that President Barack Obama had named federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as his candidate for the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court — and we also learned that the California Supreme Court had decided to let stand Proposition 8, keeping us non-heterosexuals in second-class-citizen status.

While I am thrilled that a Latina has been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, word is that Sotomayor is a moderate, a la Obama (or even more so), and that she has little to no paper trails on such issues as a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own uterus, state-sanctioned murder (a.k.a. the death penalty) and same-sex marriage.

Let’s hope that Sotomayor believes in equal rights not only for women and for Latinos, but for all Americans…

P.S. I have to note that all of the wingnuts who are “arguing” that Sotomayor had better not use her gender or race or minority status to influence her judicial decisions (!) conveniently ignore the fact that the American legal system was created by privileged, presumably heterosexual white men who fashioned the American legal system after their own backgrounds and their own interests — which is perfectly OK with the wingnuts, because it’s OK with the wingnuts when the law is set by stupid white men.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Prop 8 decision to come Tuesday!

Really this time!

This is straight (so to speak…) from the California Supreme Court’s website: The court’s decision on whether to uphold or strike down Proposition Hate — er, Proposition 8 — is to be handed down at 10 a.m. on Tuesday.

A year ago this month, the California Supreme Court, by 4-3, ruled that same-sex marriage must be allowed in California under the state Constitution’s guarantee of equal rights for all Californians.

The haters, most of them “Christo”fascists, then pushed Prop 8 — with millions of dollars from Utah (yes, the Mormons [and, to a lesser extent, the Catholicks] declared war upon us non-heterosexuals here in California) — to write discrimination against non-heterosexuals into the state’s Constitution.

Prop 8 narrowly passed on November 4 (52 percent to 48 percent) and immediately was legally challenged in the state Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether Prop 8 passes constitutional muster and, if it does, whether or not the same-sex marriages legally performed in California from June 2008 to early November are still valid.

I give it at least a 90-percent chance that the court will rule that those same-sex marriages already performed (which the Sacramento Bee’s website states number more than 18,000) will remain legally valid and about a 60-40 chance that the court will strike down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

But Tuesday will be interesting, regardless of which way the court’s decision goes; the court has had to decide whether to stick with its original decision a year ago this month to uphold equal human and civil rights for California’s non-heterosexuals or to overturn the decision of a slim majority of California’s voters to discriminate against non-heterosexuals.

Equal human and civil rights for any minority group should never be left up to a fucking vote.

The Declaration of Independence declared:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

“All … are created equal.” Heterosexuals are not more equal than non-heterosexuals, to borrow from Orwell’s Animal Farm.

“Unalienable rights.” That refers to rights that may not be taken away by any means.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” You know, liberty, a synonym for freedom, which the wingnuts can’t shut the fuck up about but which they wish to deny to non-heterosexuals and other historically oppressed minority groups. (The wingnuts say they’re “pro-life” too…)

These “truths” are “self-evident.”

There’s no argument: Those who wish to deny equal human and civil rights to non-heterosexuals violate the spirit of liberty — true liberty, not the faux “liberty” of the Repugnicans and other assorted wingnuts — with which the nation was founded.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Prop 8 ruling May 26 or 28 or June 1

Based upon the schedule with which the California Supreme Court releases its decisions, and based upon the fact that its decision on whether to give Proposition 8 a thumbs up or thumbs down is due by June 3, the court is expected to hand down its decision on Prop 8 this Tuesday (May 26), next Thursday (May 28) or Monday, June 1.

(The court releases its decisions on Mondays and Thursdays; it might release its decision on Prop 8 on Tuesday, May 26, because Monday, May 25, is a holiday for the court, Memorial Day.)

This is a big deal not only for those of us Californians who are not heterosexual, but it’s a big deal for the rest of the nation’s non-heterosexuals, too. Once the nation’s most populous state of California goes for legalized same-sex marriage — now that Iowa, Connecticut, Massachussetts, Maine and Vermont have legalized same-sex marriage — same-sex marriage in all 50 states will come more quickly, especially if the nation’s second most populous state, New York, goes for legalized same-sex marriage.

Women in the United States won their right to vote state by state, and the fight for women’s suffrage was about more than just voting — it was about women’s rights in general. Ditto for the same-sex marriage fight; whether we non-heterosexuals decide to legally marry or not, the fight for same-sex marriage expands our rights all around, which is why the same-sex marriage fight is important for every non-heterosexual in the nation.

And if the California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8? We get the issue of same-sex marriage back on the California ballot in 2010.  (No, we don’t wait until 2012.) We fight on.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

False alarm: No Prop 8 ruling tomorrow

OK, the buzz now is that the California Supreme Court will not release its decision on whether to uphold or strike down Proposition 8 tomorrow.

However, as the court’s decision is due no later than on June 3, we won’t have to wait for long.

There has been speculation that the court deliberately avoided handing down its ruling on the anniversary of the White Night Riots, but again, this is speculation…

Hopefully it’s just speculation and is not fact, because if it’s true, that doesn’t bode well as to what the court probably already has decided…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized