strauss v horton
Since people are asking...
Okay so I've read the opinion now, and basically what the California Supreme Court is saying is:
1) This wasn't a revision of the California constitution, but an amendment; California has no limitations on what parts of the Constitution voters can amend, including inalienable rights, therefor the amendment is valid.
2) However, they also conclude that Prop 8 didn't ban gay marriage. They say that all Prop 8 did was deem the word "marriage" as only applying to a narrow group. Same-sex people can still get married and retain all the same rights as married people, it's just no longer called "marriage." Prop 8 didn't ban or narrow the scope of the institution, it just banned the word. Literally.
3) Nothing in the language of Prop 8 indicates it should be considered retroactively, and so all the same-sex marriages that happened between the Marriages decision and Prop 8 are valid and still called marriages.
Here's the link if you want to read it for yourself: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF
It's pretty clear, actually, for a court opinion. I think the judges made it pretty obvious that they think California should have protected parts of its constitution (which, if it did, Prop 8 couldn't have happened...), but it's not within their scope to declare that. The voters of California would have to amend the constitution to limit their power to amend the constitution, basically, in order to keep the majority from limiting or denying rights from minority groups.
What we were hoping with this case, I believe, was for the Court to rule that Prop 8 did, in fact, ban gay marriage and thus constitutes a revision (as opposed to an amendment) of the constitution. (Revisions are defined as major changes.) Which would make Prop 8 illegal, because revisions can only be done through constitutional congress or legislative vote, not by referendum. So basically, we were looking for a loophole to make Prop 8 illegal. Instead what we got was, Prop 8 is legal because it doesn't change anything, it just narrows the scope of the word 'marriage.' It's like the H8ters copyrighted the word 'marriage'. No one else can legally use that word, but everyone can participate in the institution the word represents.
There are lawyers around who could probably explain this a lot better. And I see how the court could've made a very different decision. But at the same time, I see the reasoning behind THIS decision. It's not just about gay marriage, it's about the role and scope of the courts in these sorts of issues, and it's about the entire amendment/initiative process in California. The opinion gets pretty bitchy at the end, saying that basically we're complaining about our own right to amend the constitution, and if we think it's too easy, we need to vote to limit those powers and protect the parts of the California constitution the way they are protected in other states. Otherwise, yes, Californians absolutely have the right to take away the rights of minorities by popular vote. The court makes it pretty clear that it thinks that's utter stupidity.
Okay so I've read the opinion now, and basically what the California Supreme Court is saying is:
1) This wasn't a revision of the California constitution, but an amendment; California has no limitations on what parts of the Constitution voters can amend, including inalienable rights, therefor the amendment is valid.
2) However, they also conclude that Prop 8 didn't ban gay marriage. They say that all Prop 8 did was deem the word "marriage" as only applying to a narrow group. Same-sex people can still get married and retain all the same rights as married people, it's just no longer called "marriage." Prop 8 didn't ban or narrow the scope of the institution, it just banned the word. Literally.
3) Nothing in the language of Prop 8 indicates it should be considered retroactively, and so all the same-sex marriages that happened between the Marriages decision and Prop 8 are valid and still called marriages.
Here's the link if you want to read it for yourself: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF
It's pretty clear, actually, for a court opinion. I think the judges made it pretty obvious that they think California should have protected parts of its constitution (which, if it did, Prop 8 couldn't have happened...), but it's not within their scope to declare that. The voters of California would have to amend the constitution to limit their power to amend the constitution, basically, in order to keep the majority from limiting or denying rights from minority groups.
What we were hoping with this case, I believe, was for the Court to rule that Prop 8 did, in fact, ban gay marriage and thus constitutes a revision (as opposed to an amendment) of the constitution. (Revisions are defined as major changes.) Which would make Prop 8 illegal, because revisions can only be done through constitutional congress or legislative vote, not by referendum. So basically, we were looking for a loophole to make Prop 8 illegal. Instead what we got was, Prop 8 is legal because it doesn't change anything, it just narrows the scope of the word 'marriage.' It's like the H8ters copyrighted the word 'marriage'. No one else can legally use that word, but everyone can participate in the institution the word represents.
There are lawyers around who could probably explain this a lot better. And I see how the court could've made a very different decision. But at the same time, I see the reasoning behind THIS decision. It's not just about gay marriage, it's about the role and scope of the courts in these sorts of issues, and it's about the entire amendment/initiative process in California. The opinion gets pretty bitchy at the end, saying that basically we're complaining about our own right to amend the constitution, and if we think it's too easy, we need to vote to limit those powers and protect the parts of the California constitution the way they are protected in other states. Otherwise, yes, Californians absolutely have the right to take away the rights of minorities by popular vote. The court makes it pretty clear that it thinks that's utter stupidity.