Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

Why California's Discriminatory Proposition 8 Might Not Stand

By Karen Ocamb, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2009.


New legal actions from businesses like Google to civil rights organizations are threatening to get Prop. 8 off the books.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The anger over the passage of Proposition 8 has not abated. New groups of young activists have sprung up across the nation decrying the constitutional amendment that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. In addition to ongoing protests against pro-Prop. 8 evangelical pastor Rick Warren, the new activists are finding creative ways to stay engaged.

The twentysomething co-founders of Equal Roots, for instance, shocked and embarrassed by their own complacency during the battle over Prop. 8, sponsored a rally in West Hollywood of more than 750 people on Jan. 10, the day the new online group Join the Impact called for a national rally to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The group held a four-hour "action fair," where new activists met older organizers, signed petitions and joined new efforts.

Equal Roots advocates art as activism and prominently displayed an original poster designed for them by Shepard Fairey -- the artist whose posters of Barack Obama have become iconic. Fairey created a special "Defend Equality -- Love Unites" poster for the group, with a hundred or so first-runs expected to be auctioned off later to help support the effort.

But the highlight of the artistic advocacy was an inspired "live" version of gay composer Marc Shaiman's online skit, "Prop. 8: The Musical," at the end of the rally, featuring gay actor Wilson Cruz as Jesus.

"Today in Los Angeles, and across the state of California, the LGBT community is united and engaged like never before. We're coming together, strategizing and taking action to secure full equality for our community here in California and, ultimately, across the nation," says Equal Roots co-founder Matt Palazzolo.

And the LGBT community is getting a lot of help, starting with California Attorney General Jerry Brown. In his brief filed in December, Brown, who is considering a run for governor, said Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and announced that his office would not defend it in the lawsuit currently before the California Supreme Court.

"The amendment-initiative process does not encompass a power to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights without a compelling justification," Brown wrote. "Proposition 8 lacks such a justification."

A slew of straight allies and organizations, from labor to religious groups (including the California Council of Churches) to business and civil rights organizations, filed or signed on to legal briefs filed with the high court Thursday.

During a conference call with reporters before filing their lawsuit, SEIU-UHW's Sal Roselli, and Art Pulaski, the executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, explained why their organizations and more than 50 other labor organizations representing more than 2 million California workers filed their amicus brief.

"When you look at health-and-welfare benefits provided by legislation," Pulaski said, "those are available in traditional marriages -- but not domestic partners. Unions can negotiate with employers to be sure that domestic partners get included, but that's only a negotiating point -- it's not guaranteed. We're saying that's not fair. Benefits should be available."

Additionally, Roselli noted, if Prop. 8 is allowed to stand, no group -- including labor -- is safe from a "popular" vote.

Renown constitutional scholar Tobias Wolff, an openly gay professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, filed an amicus brief on behalf of civil rights organizations.

"This lawsuit is about the rights of all minority communities in California," Wolff said. "If a ballot initiative and simple majority vote could be used to take away the rights of one unpopular group, then the rights of any group could be subjected to a popular vote. That is why some of the nation's leading civil rights organizations have joined together to support the challenge to Proposition 8."

"Proposition 8 will be bad for California businesses in a variety of ways," said Dean Hansell. "It will be much more difficult to recruit and retain employees who might prefer to go to a state with a better legal environment" as well as confusing how to pay equal benefits. Hansell, an openly gay partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Google, Levi-Strauss and other businesses.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gay rights, california, lgbt, proposition 8, prop 8

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I thought y’all where fans of democracy.
Posted by: Nietzsche’s Bastard on Jan 29, 2009 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember you Alternet types bitching after the NRA slapped down the San Francisco Gun Bann that was voted in on referendum. I guess progressives only support being subjected to the tyranny of the majority if it supports your agenda.

Leave me alone and I’ll do the same for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No. I’m not a totalitarian scumbag Posted by: Nietzsche’s Bastard
» 2nd Amendment Disinformation Posted by: NoPCZone
Why Prop 8 Might Not Stand.
Posted by: aouie01 on Jan 29, 2009 1:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hoped and expected by many that people will be increasingly understanding and accepting of non-standard family units. In the near future (like in 2012) the majority of voters of California with the help of several petition signature gatherers (or legislators, but that is less likely) may succeed in passing a California consitutional amendment undoing the effects of 2008's proposition 8 in California. The effects of the undoing of proposition 8 will be widely accepted by the majority, and the animosity as a result of the proposition 8 and its undoer will gradually decrease. Overtime polygamous unions and incestual unions may also be widely accepted and allowed.

There is some chance that a handful of judges may decided to find some loophole to decide to rule against the validity of proposition 8 or simply fabricate (albeit cleverly) some reason as to why the proposition is invalid. Such miscarriage of their judicial responsibilities could come about by going along with the silly argument about how proposition 8 should be a "revision" and not an "amendment". Wish they would pick a more sane argument, though not one that has public momentum behind it, about how the preamble to the US Constitution says "to form a more perfect Union", and that proposition 8 is about breaking unions or at least (as far as the sensibilities of the judges are concerned) is counter to forming "a more perfect Union", and therefore is a violation of the intent of the Constitution and therefore invalid. After all, how could something that comes out of the US Constitution, ever do something against the intent of the US Constitution. For those who do not know, USA comes out of the US Constitution, and USA annexed California in 1846 from Mexico. And thus there would be no California as it is now without the US Constitution, and definitely not the US presidential election held in California in Nov 2008, which happens to be the election in which the referenced proposition 8 won enough votes to be considered valid by the majority of people.
Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Non-standard family units" Posted by: Aureantes
I hope Prop 8 does not stand.
Posted by: Nietzsche’s Bastard on Jan 29, 2009 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like I celebrated when the liberal totalitarians tried to rob people of their right to own fire arms in San Francisco, I hope the conservative totalitarians lose their battle to rob people of their freedoms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I hope Prop 8 does not stand. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Screw the People! Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Screw the People! Posted by: DHopper
» Obama and conspiracy theories... Posted by: philipcfromnyc
» RE: Screw the People! Posted by: kelly.nickell
Opposition to Proposition 8 has turned ugly
Posted by: rcase on Jan 29, 2009 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anger and the willingness to use any means to force a minority view upon the majority, to say nothing about forcing upon the nation and upon all peoples of all cultures practices and understandings that violate the teachings of all religions does not bode well for a people who advocate democracy and freedom and justice. One fears the kind of police state that would be imposed upon the nation if these tactics work. Why not accept the will of majority and live peaceably with it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The reasons are myriad Posted by: wolfgangmo
» RE: Opposition to Proposition 8 has turned ugly Posted by: minerva.figueroa@cox.net
The people have spoken. Government must submit to the will of the people.
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 29, 2009 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who do lawyers think they are, to contest the will of the people?

This is a democracy. The people have spoken. That should be the end of the story. Our vote and our rights, are there to prevent the government from over-riding the will of the people.

So, all of you gays and bi-sexuals, if you don't like it, LEAVE CALIFORNIA.

And take your creativity, your positivity, and all the other contributions to society with you. Maybe New Mexico would like to be the new cultural center of the world?

As a bisexual, I was shocked and disappointed by this in California, and in Florida. But I would be even more dissappointed if this was overridden by government and lawyers, because I think the only true way for equality for all, is democracy.

Yes, this is a step backwards for civil rights. But I think it will lead to two steps forward, because every year, society becomes more and more accepting of gays and bisexuals. I think that within 4 years, not only will this be overturned, but there will be an opposite amendment defining marriage as being between ANY two consenting adults, regardless of gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proposition 8 is morally obscene...
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Jan 29, 2009 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In handing down in re Marriage Cases, S147999 (2008), the California Supreme Court became the first state high court ever to hold that gay persons comprise a “suspect class” for the purposes of state equal protection considerations. A suspect class is an identifiable group of persons, members of which have historically been the target of invidious and purposeful discrimination triggered by expression of a shared characteristic; the characteristic is unrelated to the ability of those members to contribute to society; the characteristic is either immutable, or changeable only at unacceptable personal cost; and the group in question is relatively politically powerless. Any measure that targets a suspect class and that adversely infringes the rights of members of that class is presumptively unconstitutional, and triggers “strict scrutiny” when subjected to judicial review. To survive strict scrutiny, the measure in question must promote a “compelling” state interest, and must be “necessary” for the promotion of that interest. This is known as “narrow tailoring”; the measure must sweep no more broadly than is absolutely necessary to promote that interest.

The federal courts recognize only four suspect classes – minorities predicated on race, religion, national origin, and alienage. The California Supreme Court, however, recognizes gay men and lesbians as a suspect class.

Strict scrutiny is also triggered whenever a statute infringes a “fundamental” right. There is no exhaustive checklist of fundamental rights; these rights are recognized as case law evolves. An example is the right to privacy, which is not guaranteed by the text of the US Constitution, but which was nevertheless first explicitly recognized and guaranteed by the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)). Any statute that infringes a fundamental right is automatically subjected to strict scrutiny when challenged, regardless of the status of the group (or groups) implicated. The California Supreme Court has long considered marriage to be a fundamental right, granted extensive protection by both the state constitution and case law.

Proposition 8 is blatantly, flagrantly unconstitutional; it seeks to withdraw the ability to exercise and enjoy a fundamental right from a suspect class.

A good analogy to Proposition 8 would be a measure intended to amend the state constitution to withdraw from Catholics, and from Catholics only, the right to marry. Another good analogy would be a measure intended to prohibit Jewish people from publishing books.

Those who support Proposition 8 would be shocked and disgusted by any measure intended to prohibit the recognition of marriages entered into by Catholics only. Yet from an analytical viewpoint, such a measure is no more offensive than is Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court now has to decide how to resolve two mutually exclusive portions of the state constitution. Proposition 8 violates both the due process and the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, flatly seeking to withdraw a fundamental right from a suspect class. If the state court upholds this measure, it will effectively permit the voters to dictate to the court the manner in which the court must analyze and resolve equal protection violations, both now and in the future. This would be injurious to the separation of powers; the manner in which the court conducts its analysis is not subject to review by any majority.

The uproar surrounding passage of Proposition 8 shows no sign of abating. The Mormons, shocked by the intensity of the outrage directed towards them, now seek to exempt proponents of Proposition 8 from the financial disclosure requirements of the legislative process.

This is political prostitution – period.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Have Another Rumble at the Ballot Box
Posted by: jimswanson on Jan 29, 2009 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations”
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire book]

I’m a progressive Christian who fought against Proposition 8 and is appalled at the Christian Reich’s upside-down version of Christianity—Pro-Rich and Pro-War—and its war on the LGBT community and the U.S. Constitution, including the separation of church and state.

But I’m almost hoping that the legal efforts to overturn Prop. 8 are unsuccessful.

Good God, why?

Because I’d relish another fight at the California ballot box against the Forces of Darkness who oppose LGBT rights.

I’d like to see a light once again focused on rightwing churches, a light that would be much brighter and harsher this time around.

I’d like to see political pastors like Rick Warren squirm a little more, as they realize they’re on the wrong side of history and human rights.

I’d like to eliminate the rightwing argument that it was liberal out-of-control judges who imposed their personal agendas on the people of California.

I’d like to be able to say that the people of California finally stood up for the LGBT community.

Yes, let’s have another rumble at the ballot box.

Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
“The Bush League of Nations”
www.bushleagueofnations.com [for FREE download of entire book]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those abused by the No on 8 activists STAND UP
Posted by: minerva.figueroa@cox.net on Jan 29, 2009 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hear a lot about the intimidation suffered by supporters of proposition 8. I want to know how many of those "victims" have called their police department to investigate these acts of intimidation.
I believe most of those violent acts are lies propagated by supporters of yes on 8. They want to be seen as victims of opponents of prop 8. That way they can hide the fact that the yes on 8 supporters voted to take away the rights of a minority.
Majority rule is not democracy. Any of you who believe that a majority taking the rights of a minority is an example of democracy should review their copy of the constitution.
Proposition 8 is a travesty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Those abused by the No on 8 activists STAND UP Posted by: minerva.figueroa@cox.net
History shows that democracy and civil rights are NOT synonymous
Posted by: Jon on Jan 29, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the courts had not stepped in when they did segregation and the ban on interracial marriages, not to mention a hosts of other civil rights would not be a reality today. Democracy is not a perfect vehicle. When the courts decided to overturn segregation and the ban on interracial marriages, the National Guard had to be called in to keep the peace. You really don't know your history if you think democracy was responsible for the civil rights or minorities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lawrence v. Texas...
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Jan 29, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, since their relationships were FULLY LEGALIZED by the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling (Lawrence v. Texas) that struck down the last remaining anti-sodomy laws."

*********
Response:
*********

What was particularly significant about Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) was not the fact that the US Supreme Court struck down all state sodomy laws as applied to consenting adults acting in private for non-commercial purposes. What was particularly significant was the tone and implications of Lawrence. In Lawrence, the Court expressly and bluntly overturned an obscene earlier decision (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) in which the Court had upheld the constitutionality of such statutes. Lawrence marked a sea change in terms of the manner in which the Court viewed gay men and lesbians. Sneering references gave way to respectful treatment, in an opinion that stressed the dignity of gay people and that emphasized the limits of the state's power to legislate in the realm of "moral" decision-making. Citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Court emphasized that "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

The Court also noted that the mere existence of anti-gay sex statutes constituted an open invitation to legislative bodies and private entities to discriminate against gay persons in other contexts ("When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration, in and of itself, is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.").

In short, Lawrence marked the end of a long and ugly chapter in American history. The bellicose, lengthy dissent signed by the Three Stooges (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) was longer than the majority decision itself. Scalia, who authored this dissent, was well aware of the significance of the decision, and did what little he could to undermine its legitimacy.

Federal appeals courts are still grappling with the analysis and breadth of the Court's holding in Lawrence. The First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, in particular, have recently analyzed Lawrence and have concluded that the Court applied a more demanding standard than mere rational basis review in Lawrence.

The full impact of Lawrence has not yet been realized.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lawrence v. Texas... Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Lawrence v. Texas... Posted by: philipcfromnyc
» sumter v obama Posted by: edgar1
» RE: sumter v obama Posted by: kelly.nickell
» RE: sumter v obama Posted by: philipcfromnyc
Support Proposition 9!
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 29, 2009 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, I'm not a CA resident - but if I were, I'd start a petition to outlaw marriage between homophobic bigots.

Obviously, homophobes are a much greater threat to society. They tie people to fences and beat them to death. They drive teenagers to suicide. They deny people their civil rights. They keep trying to overrule the separation of church and state.

If we could keep them from reproducing, then they'd stop passing their filthy habits on to innocent children.

Problem solved!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the 2/3 majority?
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jan 29, 2009 3:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought that in order to pose an amendment to the Constitution, there needed to be a 2/3 majority.
How come this passed with simple majority?
Am I completely off here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And the 2/3 majority? Posted by: DHopper
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Anyone remember Proposition 14?
Posted by: travellinpat on Jan 31, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way back in 1964, Californians passed a proposition repealing the Unruh Fair Housing Act and substituting devious language that a person could refuse to sell or rent his/her house "for reasons of his/her own choosing." Including race or religion. This was 1964, remember. The thick of civil rights unrest.

People were amazed that the proposition passed almost 2 to 1. In my suburban town in San Diego county, it passed almost 3 to 1.

Nine months later the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional. That was a long nine months.

Winning a majority of a vote, especially in emotionally charged times, is seldom a guarantee of being "right." Imagine if voters in Mississippi or Alabama in the '60s had been asked whether Black people deserved equal rights. You know how that vote would have gone.

I feel Prop 8 will be overturned sooner or later. It will take some good loud lobbying. But please, not another vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement