Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:33 AM
Original message
"Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution"
Proposition 8 has passed, denying to some the right enjoyed by other citizens in California, the right to marry. Now, the central question for the courts to decide is: Are gays in California equal, or can members of certain churches declare them constitutionally inferior? The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government. Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the government and using it against nonbelievers.

In the aftermath of Tuesday's vote, do gays and lesbians in California have a reason to believe that they have been abused, discriminated against and relegated to a separate-but-equal status? Yes, and that's why this fight is far from over. There will be a challenge under the U.S. Constitution. In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California constitutional amendment that limited fair housing on the grounds that prejudice could not be put into a state Constitution.

No one can forecast the outcome of this next fight, but there is bound to be some fallout that may harm those religions that so vehemently insisted that their beliefs be placed in the California Constitution. All religions require tolerance to flourish, but in Proposition 8 some religious groups aimed at and wounded gay people in California. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution had a brilliant, experienced view concerning the importance of drawing the lines to protect religion on the one hand and civil government on the other. They put those lines in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, those lines are very relevant.

Government may not attack religion. Californians who have religious beliefs concerning the proper scope of marriage may exercise those rights as they see fit. Churches have always been able to proceed as they wish concerning marriage ceremonies. There was no mandate to suppress religious beliefs. This should be obvious to everyone in California because of our tolerance of all religions.

That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we like it or not.

The other branch of the First Amendment is equally important. The state may not establish a religion. The state may not take principles of religious belief from a religion, any religion, and establish it as the law applicable to all. This line establishing the double branch of protection of religion on the one hand and no establishment on the other was arrived at after hundreds of years of turmoil.

snip

Finally, marriage is a fundamental right in constitutional analysis. There are very few things in life more important than the ability to choose one's partner. Marriage is not just a word; it is a status, a state of mind, a way of being. Look in any direction and you will see examples of the people's respect for the institution of marriage. A large group of Californians has now been denied that fundamental institution. These folks are our neighbors, our friends, our colleagues and our relatives. The constitutional promise of this state is, as the California Supreme Court held, that they are equally protected in the enjoyment of rights by all Californians. But the voters have spoken. Now it will be up to the courts to explain whether equality is real - or just an illusion. I would not wish to be the one to justify this vote to a gay woman going to Afghanistan in the military, to a gay police officer who risks everything so we may be safe or any of the other thousands of gays and lesbians in California who contribute so much to our culture, our advancement and our well being.

more here

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/08/INUV13V3I2.DTL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. 4 recs and sinking like a stone
shameless kick

B-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCaliDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. When it comes to something as important as civil rights, there's never any shame...
... so you deserved none from this member's p.o.v.

Thank you for taking the time to bring hope back into DU regarding this discussion, ourbluenation. :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. you're welcome.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. Excellent article.
I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that declares that GLBT people are equal and therefore have the right to marry. I think that President Obama will have to wait until there are positions open in the Supreme Court and federal courts first. I'm sure that it will happen; I think everybody knows that it will happen; the question is "when"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justiceischeap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. K + R for Positive discussion about Prop 8 (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike 03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Very good. K&R. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. kick & recommend
it's not only a 1st amendment issue, it's also a 14th amendment issue, which may hit closer to home to some.

Marriage provides certain legal protections for privacy and property - now the state is disallowing equal protection, which is clearly against the 14th amendment, as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
8. not quite yet. the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution guarantee equal
protection under the law

As far as California is concerned, to ammend the Constitution by a simple majority has issues associated with it also

If for nothing else, State law cannot superceed federal law


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. yes, there's legal issues all over the place with this outrageous over reach n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lelgt60 Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. So, if gay marriage was part of a religious belief, it would be OK?
So all gays have to do is form a church?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. sounds like a great strategy - then gays can start excluding "non-believers" like LDS do lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. Kick for and end to homophobic bigotry!

Equal rights for ALL!:kick:We Can Do Better!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. as a californian something just occured to me....
at first I was so upset that this ridiculous amendment passed in my state. i was embarrassed and ashamed. But fellow californians take heart...in the end it might actually provide the end to other states amending their constitution in like manner. Like the guy who wrote the op, I think their are some fairly obvious legal issues with this amendment and other states are watching. In the end I think it will be overturned by the scotus, paving the way to defining once and for all equal protections and benefits under the law for gay americans.

know hope.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
15. Damn... Am I Good Or What ??? - K & R !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. Oh look, another person who thinks that prop 8 sounds like
Plessy vs. Ferguson. And he's a writer for SFgate.

Must not be that "absurd" a comparison after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Oh Hell Man...
If they had put Separate But "Equal" up to state referendums\propositions in the South, we might very well still have Jim Crow today.

Usually the court decisions come first, the legislation second.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Sorry....just being a little snarky
There is a prominent DUer running around calling anyone who says what the OP mentions (separate but equal) "absurd" along with whatever other choice of hyperbolic invective comes to mind. Sometimes people tip their hand too much with intellectual dishonesty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. not just on DU i'm afraid. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
17. No one raised a big stink when Wisconsin voters did the same...
Edited on Mon Nov-10-08 12:29 PM by LeftHander
We lost more than Californians as Wisconsin Amendment bans not only marriage for same sex couples but ANYTHING similar to MARRIAGE...so the religious have won that battle. And it has been two years now and we are suffering under this horrible ban.

On Edit: In May a legal challenge was defeated on the grounds that the amendment language asked two questions in the referendum sent to voters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. your edit confuses me...could you clarify?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. As you may recall ...
it was religion that first thought marriage could be institutionalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
23. Passing Prop 8 may be a blessing in disguise
California will face a SC challenge over this, and under the Equal Protection clause, I firmly believe that it will be ruled unconstitutional.

How that ruling may affect every state is unclear. Will the SC just rule and throw it back to the states in general, California in specific, or rule laws such as Prop 8 that deny equal protection unconstitutional, period?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smkyle1 Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I hope you are right. Wouldn't that be wonderful! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-10-08 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. Have any other states done this?
I mean an actual change in their constitution to ban gay marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
26. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertDevereaux Donating Member (640 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-11-08 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
27. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC