zibacco ([info]zibacco) wrote,
@ 2008-11-07 12:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Our wonderful new laws


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]noble_zone
2008-11-07 10:36 pm UTC (link)
So did you protest in Westwood with thousands of others or was posting to your blog as much energy you could muster?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]zibacco
2008-11-07 10:53 pm UTC (link)
I actually didn't hear about any of that until after the fact. I feel like a total jackass for not being there. The truth is for the past couple of days I've basically tuned out and focused on my virtual problems in Fall Out 3. Its officially my lamest moment ever.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]duncan_o
2008-11-07 11:29 pm UTC (link)
Hey Z, I'm sorry about that. I was really surprised...even though I think a lot of wacko politics come out of CA (just like AZ), I was sure your state's voters were going to recognize that government really shouldn't be legislating morality. Especially when it's only one group's idea of morality. AZ had a nearly identical proposition, and the fucking theocrats there passed it by nearly the same margin. Dark days, my friend...

My solution is to petition to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage has always been a religious institution, and it's always been defined differently by different religions. Church and state anyone? If someone wants a government-sanctioned civil union with all the legal and financial benefits that that entails, then they should go to city hall. If someone wants "marriage", go to church.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]zibacco
2008-11-07 11:40 pm UTC (link)
Thanks. And getting gov't out is definitely one solution. I'd be happy with that, too. Technically that's what actually happens, actually. The "sanctity" part is all a church thing, but the legal institution is somethihg else altogether. The equal protection clause of the constitution is pretty clear that you can't do separate but equal, but I'm not sure that changes anything when the discrimination is actually in the constitution. The courts will have a chance to weigh in, so it might not be over yet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]duncan_o
2008-11-08 12:33 am UTC (link)
Hooray for strict constructionist justices! ;)

Seriously though, though an "activist judge" might rule in favor of freedom in this case, a judge who rules according to the principles of the Constitution should come to the same conclusion. While there is often a popular basis for discrimination, there is never a legal or moral one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-11-10 03:11 pm UTC (link)
I don't see how the state supreme can do anything vis-a-vis this amendment. It would be pure activism on their part to throw it out. Ultimately one would have to make the civil rights point in federal court and take DOMA all the way to the SCOTUS.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zibacco
2008-11-10 06:22 pm UTC (link)
Actually, there's precedent for overturing voter initiative amendments that interfere with core constitutional principles. The CA SC did it before back in the 80's over some prisoner's rights issue. And equal protection is definitely a core principle. We'll see what they do.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2008-11-10 08:36 pm UTC (link)
Not familiar with that case, but that would be in line with the surprising "strict scrutiny" ruling earlier this year.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…