Will Prop 8 be overturned by the CA Supreme Court?

[ambitious_wench]

One of the arguments against the constitutionality of Prop 8 being explored by various groups (including the NAACP!) is that it witholds a "substantive" right from a minority. A bit of history is in order here;

On May 15th of 2008, the Supreme Court of California handed down a decision (the case was a consolidation of 6 cases brought before the court). A PDF of the entire ruling can be read here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

In retaliation, a group known as "ProtectMarriage.com" sponsered proposition 8. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

It passed.

However, take a look at the wording of the California Supreme Court decision; on page 6 you will find the following:

"...upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."
Emphasis mine.

What does this mean? Well, it seems to me that if the appeal to the California Supreme Court is heard, they may very well overturn the initiative based on the emphasized quote above. Why? Because if you can take away a basic human right like marriage from a minority, you can take away other rights like free speech, the right to gather peacefully, the right to bear arms, all on the whim of a popular vote. This is why we have a Supreme Court at the state level, and at the Federal level, to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

In closing, I'd like to quote one of the world's most disturbing poems:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

--Martin Niemöller

Comments

[barberio.livejournal.com]

The second argument, and the clearer one, is that the proposition as written served to revise the constitution rather than amend it. And the California constitution makes the clear distinction that revisions to the constitution can only be made with two thirds assent of the legislature.