in case you didn't know:
the courts sadly upheld the validity of prop 8
but decided that the marriage of same sex couples who got married before it was passed are still valid
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage27-2009may27,0,7752874.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/opinion/27wed2.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=proposition%208&st=cse
this situation is strange:
--its good that their marriages weren't dissolved, but now they're like a special class of citizens- the few lucky ca lgbt ppl who are legally married
--prop 8 was considered a ca constitutional amendment- which means that if the majority of people were to vote on repealing any 'minor right' that it would be valid [ie- banning free speech in ca would be constitutional under this ruling]
--this "amendment" goes against the FEDERAL constitution's Equal Protection Clause- which protects a minority groups rights & is supposed to prevent the majority of voting away their rights [hence the new federal lawsuit]
--the litigation language not only validated prop 8 because of the decision of amendment vs revision, but it also demeaned the dignitary right of the term marriage:
they stated that lgbt ppl had domestic partnerships with all of the same benefits as marriage [which is not completely true] so the argument over the label marriage is minor- which is endorsing SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
but decided that the marriage of same sex couples who got married before it was passed are still valid
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage27-2009may27,0,7752874.story
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/opinion/27wed2.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=proposition%208&st=cse
this situation is strange:
--its good that their marriages weren't dissolved, but now they're like a special class of citizens- the few lucky ca lgbt ppl who are legally married
--prop 8 was considered a ca constitutional amendment- which means that if the majority of people were to vote on repealing any 'minor right' that it would be valid [ie- banning free speech in ca would be constitutional under this ruling]
--this "amendment" goes against the FEDERAL constitution's Equal Protection Clause- which protects a minority groups rights & is supposed to prevent the majority of voting away their rights [hence the new federal lawsuit]
--the litigation language not only validated prop 8 because of the decision of amendment vs revision, but it also demeaned the dignitary right of the term marriage:
they stated that lgbt ppl had domestic partnerships with all of the same benefits as marriage [which is not completely true] so the argument over the label marriage is minor- which is endorsing SEPARATE BUT EQUAL