Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Prop 8 Update

The official stats are now 52.3% in favor, 47.7% opposed to Proposition 8. Hundreds of thousands of ballots remain to be counted. The happy news is coming from Los Angeles county where the "yes" vote is now at a mere 50.3%, just 16,000 ahead of "no." We may flip LA County to the good side when all absentees are tallied. That would be a nice moral victory, at least.

More massive protests were in Santa Monica last night. This is something new. This isn't just a Gay Pride Parade. Rather, perhaps for the first time, we are seeing widespread community support for equal rights up and down California, all in the wake of Prop 8's narrow victory. I am increasingly optimistic that this can be repealed next year. Already, talk of boycotts of those who supported Prop 8 is staggering. I heard last night that the wife of the owner of El Cholo, a local restaurant, gave $100 to the "yes" on Prop 8 campaign, and the restaurant has now got some 'splainin' to do. I, for one, will not use a Marriott hotel again (that is a Mormon institution). Californians are waking up to the ugliness of Prop 8 - and of its supporters - and do not like it. As my pastor said last Sunday, to the applause of the congregation ("I am so proud of my country, and so ashamed of my state.").

There is an outside chance that the CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 on state law grounds, that being that it was a revision of the constitution, not a mere amendment. This seems to me to be intellectually indefensible as a general matter. However, the California SC could say the following: The guarantees of equal protection are so deeply ingrained throughout dozens of provisions in the CA constitution that abandoning this principle is of this magnitude must be considered more than a mere amendment. Perhaps. It seems a bit too results-oriented for me.

I think the California SC will be more likely to overturn it on federal constitutional grounds, arguing that where domestic partnerships/civil unions exist that give all the rights and benefits of marriage, a law banning the use of the term "marriage" is without a rational basis other than animus towards homosexuals. It said this under the state constitution last time around; it could make a federal argument this time around. Note that it could make this ruling without requiring that states permit same-sex marriage.

6 comments:

Michael Ejercito said...

Under the revision v. amendment case law in California, an initiative reinstating the death penalty, after the California Supreme Court had ruled the death penalty to constitute cruel and unusual punishment , was ruled to be a legitimate amendment. ( People v. Frierson ) History clearly shows that the fundamental protection from cruel and unusual punishment is deeply ingrained in our constitution and history.

For the Court to rule against Prop. 8, they would have to ignore all the case law on the issue of revision v. amendment.

They would also effectively rule that defining marriage requires a revision, but legalizing waterboarding as punishment for crimes requires only an amendment.

Dr. Strangelove said...

I agree with LTG: I highly doubt the "revision" argument will succeed, but the CA Supreme Court could well overturn Prop 8 on Federal constitutional grounds. I especially like LTG's point that the US Supreme Court could uphold such a ruling by the CA Supreme Court because it would not assert a general constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Raised By Republicans said...

I'm also gratified by analysis on Fivethirtyeight.com that shows that while it is true that African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, NEW voters voted overwhelmingly against it. To the extent that Obama is responsible for a large number of those new voters, his being on the ticket helped the No on 8 cause.

In an unrelated area: if a court strikes Prop 8 down, be prepared for street demonstrations by the Yes on 8 campaign and other hate groups upset that the "will of the people" has been rejected.

Pombat said...

And if you recognise any of the people in the Yes demonstrations as local business owners, boycott baby, boycott!

Anonymous said...

The woman who gave to the Yes on 8 campaign is an owner of the El Coyote Cafe, not El Cholo (thank the good lord, I like my Meximerican food every so often).

Apparently, she was pretty shocked and tearful about the whole business. Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for her. If you are naive enough to believe that (1) no one in this day and age has access to your political donation information and (2) your (gay, latte-sipping, liberal elite, and/or non-real American) customers are going to keep coming back after you give to something as noxious as the Yes on 8 campaign, then there's not a lot that can be done.

-Seventh Sister

Pombat said...

Bit of a naive view, yes, and regardless of the naivete, she's supported something that made a whole lot of people more than just shocked and tearful - this sounds like just karma to me.

Whilst it would be unfair to punish a business because a staff member donated (I am making the assumption that all staff members exercise free will in their political decisions), any business whose owner, or co-owner, donated, is fair game for boycotts.

ps am also glad it wasn't El Cholo - I had a fantastic tamale there (never tried them before).