An emotional accounting of the arguments to invalidate Prop 8
by kelli Busey
March 4, 2009
Today the California Supreme Court heard arguments that the changes made to the California Constitution by a popular vote should be removed.
As thousands of opponents waited outside and hundreds of thousands nationwide watched the justice's put the opponents on the defensive as to why the changes to the constitution represented a revision as opposed to being an amendment.
What the judges were reluctant and some even refused to consider was the constitutionality of removing an 'inalienable right' that is guaranteed by the constitution from a minority by the majority. Each time this argument was brought up the judges stated that their interpretation of the law restricted by the briefs filed by the opponents, placed this argument outside consideration in this case.
This would beg the question. Is the court the proper place to revise or amend the constitution, or should it be done in full consideration by the legislature?
One Justice asked basically whats the harm if thy upheld the removal of rights from a minority? Wouldn't the minority be allowed to protest?
The ruling should be forthcoming within 90 days.
Also found are factual accounts of the prop 8 arguments on March 5, 2009
About Get Busy, Get Equal ACLU
The National Center for Lesbian Rights
AP Press Calif justices hear arguments in gay marriage case
No comments:
Post a Comment