Comments | jimkeller: Prop 8 On Trial (Again)

jimkeller

Prop 8 On Trial (Again)

Jan 18, 2010 10:19

The mainstream media, even before the horrific tragedy in Haiti, barely mentioned this, so I don't fault anyone for not realizing, but the Federal court case against Proposition 8 (which again suppressed the right of gays and lesbians to marry in California) began a week ago today. ( More of Jim's longwinded legal ramblings behind the cut. )

proposition 8, marriage equality, gay rights, news, prejudices, constitution, law, links, equality, bigotry

Comments 21

mlerules January 18 2010, 18:27:30 UTC

Thx for this.

jsadler January 18 2010, 18:35:43 UTC

I'm pleased to report that I did hear about it multiple times on the radio down here. And on the mainstream stations (while listening for traffic reports).

the_celestia January 18 2010, 18:42:42 UTC

It was all over the place in Pittsburgh (at least on the two TV stations we get, no thanks to the people who forced digital TV on us!).

jimkeller January 18 2010, 20:35:41 UTC

That's good to hear.

kclightman January 19 2010, 22:06:41 UTC

I heard a few smatterings on NPR but it's not in much detail.

essentialsaltes January 18 2010, 20:11:06 UTC

I'd love to see a 1st Amendment challenge as well, as limiting who may marry suppresses the rights of other religions to perform marriages they believe to be acceptable.

I didn't notice any suppression during your wedding. This mingling of religious ceremony and government paperwork is, of course, right at the heart of the acrimony over the whole issue. But Prop 8 doesn't have any effect on what religious groups do, just whether a marriage license can be filled out afterwards.

(Similarly, the Fundamentalist LDS people practice polygamy, but they do not commit bigamy, inasmuch as they generally don't seek out marriage licenses from the state.)

jimkeller January 18 2010, 20:35:25 UTC

Technically, by calling it a wedding instead of a "commitment ceremony," our pastor was breaking the law. Our congregation had decided some time before that we would stand by our pastor should the state ever decide to enforce the law prohibiting ministers from solemnizing a marriage in the absence of a valid license.

essentialsaltes January 18 2010, 21:02:38 UTC

That's ridiculous! Of course, that means it really is part of the law.

"359. Every person authorized to solemnize marriage, who willfully
and knowingly solemnizes any incestuous or other marriage forbidden
by law, is punishable by fine of not less than one hundred nor more
than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail not
less than three months nor more than one year, or by both.

360. Every person authorized to solemnize any marriage, who
solemnizes a marriage without first being presented with the marriage
license, as required by Section 421 of the Family Code; or who
solemnizes a marriage pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section
500) of Division 3 of the Family Code without the authorization
required by that part; or who willfully makes a false return of any
marriage or pretended marriage to the recorder or clerk and every
person who willfully makes a false record of any marriage return, is
guilty of a misdemeanor."

sheistheweather January 19 2010, 21:16:50 UTC

Thank you for this. I have linked to this.

jimkeller January 19 2010, 23:05:11 UTC

You're welcome. Glad you found it useful.

kclightman January 19 2010, 22:04:09 UTC

I'm so glad you're posting about this. I've been searching for what I can but news can be hard to find ( ... )

jimkeller January 19 2010, 23:11:37 UTC

1) I think it only helps people who want to be able to stand up in court and spew whatever nonsense they feel like without having to face the consequences of their actions. Our legal system is based, fundamentally, on the right to publicly confront your accuser. If we can't force people to go on record and stand behind what they say, then anything they say can't have true strength of their convictions behind it. I also find it interesting that the respondents were citing cameras in the courtroom as the reason why they kept pruning their witness list; however, when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, not only did they fail to put back the witnesses who were so afraid of the cameras, they pruned their witness list further. I think the "cameras in the courtroom" flap is just smoke to cover the fact that these pro-hatred witnesses don't actually know what they are talking about and were going to be ripped to shreds on cross-examination. However, since the Supreme Court is personally afraid of cameras (after all, what would the ( ... )

kclightman January 19 2010, 23:13:53 UTC

Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

jimkeller January 19 2010, 23:19:10 UTC

2) I'm with you that this is a no-brainer of 14th Amendment grounds. But that said, courts have made a mockery of the 14th Amendment many times in the past. One court went so far as to take a case of a law that had been proven, conclusively, to have no rational basis, and make up a rational basis of its own. (They concluded that since same-sex couples can't have unplanned children, then banning same-sex marriage makes sense for the protection of unplanned children. It hadn't been argued. It doesn't even make sense. But they ruled it ( ... )

Thread 10