Sad day for justice

[tejas]

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 which denies existing civil rights to a minority of Californians.

Watch out Californians, who knows who'll be next in the Religionista's sights.

Comments

[tuawahine]

So what happens to those already married?

[tejas]

The court ruled that Prop 8 wasn't retroactive, so those marriages stand. All they ruled on was the legality of amending the constitution through a proposition.

[or_mabinogi]

I'm hearing that it technically did not revise the constitution and therefore does not violate any state laws. But since the marriages prior to the passing of Prop 8 are still legally recognized it opens the door for a discrimination case because some were able to marry and others are not (now).

[tejas]

That's what I was thinking.

[nialla42]

Upholding Prop 8 yet leaving the pre-existing marriages valid is going to fire up more people over the discrimination of why some gays can be married while others are not, much less the idea that only straights can marry.

I'm not happy with the decision at all, but they may actually be canny and waiting to let a new "will of the people" overrule Prop 8, so they can't be accused of judicial lawmaking and those who proclaim Prop 8 is the will of the people won't be able to use that as a reason anymore.

[tejas]

It may be that's it's actually the only ruling that could come out of the court. Prop 8 may have been constitutional in form, which is all they were looking at. By not striking down the marriages, which were also constitutional, the court *is* tossing it back and saying "c'mon, morons, this isn't rocket science".

[tuawahine]

That at least is good to hear.
This whole thing is a prime example of why some things should not be put to a majority vote even in a democracy, imo.

[tejas]

Agreed. Human rights issues shouldn't be subjected to the vote.