Zennie on CNN's "Money and Main Street" as iReporter

Thanks to the iReport team for this. They and Anderson Cooper are the best!

The California Supreme Court’s Illogical Prop 8 Decision

 

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!



On YouTube



Tuesday, May 26, 2009 will go down as an eventful San Francisco day, sunny, and yet dark, and one that saw a lot of people marginalized who didn’t want to be. But then, who does. Before I turn to who said what, and who got arrested, I stick my head right into the belly of the beast, the California Supreme Court’s decision.


Today, in first upholding Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal that passed in November 2008, and yet protecting the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were done before the passage of the initiative, the California Supreme Court successfully stood logic on its head. I’ve just read the Court’s entire 167-page decision, and while I understand the reasons given by the majority of justices (six supporting the decision, one against it and even then the six judges that agreed were not perfect in their union) I’m concerned with the logic behind them.


To cut to the chase, the Court has placed the 18,000 same-sex marriages in a legally questionable second-class status of rights that, even though the Court claims to protect their rights under marriage, didn’t even consider if those rights would be maintained if the couples elect to divorce or remarry each other for the sake of the children they have.


First, even though I’ve read the full document, I encourage you to do so as well. Even if you think you can’t understand what’s there, challenge yourself, read it, talk about it with your friends. And most of all learn from it.


A Three-Pronged Decision


The California Supreme Court based its decision on three considerations, if the initiative was a constitutional amendment or revision, the validity of the initiative process itself, and if Proposition 8 itself is retroactive, applying to existing same-sex marriages.


In upholding Proposition 8, The California Supreme Court tried to get itself out of a legal pickle created in early 2008, when it protected same-sex marriages in a case called “The Marriages Cases”. To recap, the Court determined that marriage was not limited to a man and a woman.


But later in the same year, Californians passed Prop 8, which earned 52 percent of the vote. Then, California Attorney General Jerry Brown challenged Prop 8 in the California Supreme Court, most famously. (Brown used the observation that “natural law” was over the California Constitution, and since Prop 8 eliminated the rights of a group of Californians, it was in violation of the “unalienable rights” granted by the California Constitution and “natural law”. In today’s decision, The Court wrote that while Brown’s argument was creative, and I would add logical, it was “without merit.”)


And there we have the Court’s pickle: upholding their own decision protecting existing same sex marriages, and yet protecting the initiative process of which Proposition 8 is a part.


In the Decision the majority of judges argue that the initiative process itself is part of The California Constitution and thus can’t be considered something that alters and is outside of the California Constitution. Moreover, the Court writes that Proposition 8 itself is not a constitutional revision, but just an amendment. Why? Because the Court’s majority claims it only concerns marriage and doesn’t call for a large number of word additions or changes. The decision outlines a number of case examples where the Court’s decision backed the idea that an initiative was an amendment and not a revision to the California Constitution, as some of Prop 8’s attackers have claimed.


Finally, the Court majority asserts that even though the framers of Prop 8 may have intended otherwise, the way it was written itself prevents it from being retroactively applied. Thus, existing same sex marriages are upheld.


But here’s where the problem starts, even if one agrees with the other aspects of the majority’s decision. The Court writes “a retroactive application of the initiative would disrupt thousands of actions taken in reliance on The Marriages Cases by these same-sex couples, their employers, their creditors, and many others” (p. 134) and then goes on to mention that such would result in “undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by this state’s highest court.”


But I argue in upholding Prop 8 and existing same-sex marriages, the Court has placed the rights of the existing married couples in disarray and damaged the California Constitution in the process: it’s not for all Californians. If same-sex married couples chose to divorce, they can’t then marry someone else of the same sex, or remarry the same person even if it would be to the benefit of the family they established! There’s no evidence in the Court’s decision – and I looked for it - that this was taken into account.


The dissenting opinion by Justice Moreno focused on the stripping of rights to a minority group, but since the reality is that being gay or straight is really more fluid than fixed and the choice of the individual, the Court’s decision impacts a much broader group of the population and one that’s hard to quantify.


Peaceful Protests in San Francisco


The decision left a lot of people scratching their heads in and around San Francisco City Hall and the California Supreme Court building just next door. While a peaceful protest complete with pre-arranged arrests amassed on Van Ness Avenue between the City Hall and Davies Symphony Hall, a large press conference was held in the South Light Court in City Hall.


California Supreme Court There, many of the lawyers who worked to combat the passage of Prop 8 shared their observations with the audience. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who played a key role in the battle against Prop 8, said I’m disappointed... I think the Court in my view focused on procedure rather than arguments. And that fundamental rights are part of the debate.” He said it was back to the ballot box, a view shared by the Court itself in the decision issued today.


A Shameful Intellectual Display


The Court’s majority decision was shameful, to say the least. I told someone that people will develop an intellectual argument to support their raw emotions, and this California Supreme Court did just that. The Court’s emotional bent is to protect what was decided by it and by the voters in the initiative process rather than challenge it, even if such an alteration would protect the full state constitutional rights of all Californians.


Some conservatives have interpreted the California Supreme Court’s decision as the Court defining marriage as between “a man and a woman”, but that’s wrong. The Court is protecting the initiative called Proposition 8 which claims marriage is between a man and woman because it interprets the California Constitution as consisting of these constitutional amendments and the Court has stated that its job is to interpret the state constitution and that it’s not above it. That distinction is important because should voters pass a new initiative that overturns Prop 8, the Court would be legally inclined to protect it as well.

Sonia Sotomayor First Latino Judge Named To Supreme Court

Warning! Jay Glazer's Twiiter Account Is Not His: ProfootballTalk.Com

My friend from Super Bowl bid years past, and NFL Draft years present, Fox Sports' Jay Glazer is spreading the word that this Twitter account: http://twitter.com/jayglazer does not belong to Glazer at all.

According to Profootballtalk.com, the account is a fake, but even then Jay need not worry too much; the "Fake Glazer" Twitter page has only 76 followers as of this writing. A person of Jay's stature should have thousands of followers, even if the account's not his.

Owen Thomas Lands At KNTV Digital From Valleywag; Starts May 26th

Owen Thomas, who introduced me to the great libations at what was once Moose's in North Beach during the Valleywag Friday happy hours of a few positive GDP growth cycles back, then left the helm of that Gawker-run tech gossip site, has landed on his feet at KNTV Digital, according to "Broadcasting & Cable".

Reportedly, Thomas will manage the NBC Bay Area website, nbcbayarea.com, but I'd guess absent the interesting, biting, and at times down right wild commentary that spared no one. 

Well, almost on one. He and the other Gawker staffers had this soft spot for Internet celebrity Julia Allison. But I digress.

 

Owen Thomas with Julia Allison Hanging On

The Friday meetups stopped well before Thomas depature, but knowing him I'm sure something close to what used to be will materialize. But I say "congratulations, Owen!" The next one's on me!

And on a personal note thanks for the tips!

Andrew Baron's Back With Magma, A Video Tracking Website

Remember Andrew Baron who created the first huge vide-blog show Rocketboom.com, is back with an exciting new startup called Magma. The site, which is in beta stage, is a kind of video-aggregation system where one can track the most popular videos even as they're uploaded and drawing interest.

From what I read at TechCrunch, it's far from complete, his system, but worth waiting for!

Memorial Day in Texas: secession wasn't Perry's point at all

By raising states' rights at a tea bag event, then backing away ASAP assuring everybody it’s just really, really just a discussion about federalism and the role of local vs national government, has Governor Rick Perry sent his signal to those who hear it another way? It didn't stay off the radar, but if the message was received does he care? Some of us still vividly recall George Wallace flanked by Alabama State Troopers, and an era when states' rights was just the PC way to say "segregation is our vision."

Try surveying Texans on Memorial Day, or the 4th of July, and I guarantee they won't be talking about seceding, they're proud to be Americans. If you ask them about Bush cutting taxes on the rich while shorting armor for Americans in Iraq they won't defend him much more than anybody else in the GOP, either.

You might think it was just a ploy for exposure by their current Governor - Perry's back-walking the rhetoric as hard and fast as he can, certainly. But was it really a mistake, just a gaffe, or a just ploy for exposure? At a tea-party? More likely a staged sequence by a savvy politico.

If Rick Perry or his speech team was that inept he wouldn't be the Governor in the first place. States' Rights remains a politically correct way to alert white racists that even if they're a minority they're not alone, and Perry's scripted performance has planted the seeds. The GOP's most visible folks are steadily abandoning the values of moderate Americans.

read more | digg story