Our equality is not provisional, Mr. Hausknecht
Oh, how brazen our opposition is getting! Responding to the news that the flawed, cruel, un-American, someday-to-be-recognized-as-a-great-historical-misstep known as Proposition 8 will make its way to California's November ballot, Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht has brought forth the following quote (highlighting our own):
"The lawsuit was an act of desperation by those who fear the democratic process in California," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Even the activist California Supreme Court, which has temporarily given us same-sex 'marriage' in that state, could easily recognize the lack of merit in this challenge."
Uh, wait a minute -- "temporarily given"?! Oh no, no, no Bruce. what the Supreme Court has given gay and lesbian people is freedom under the law. It said that when dealing with the classification of gay people, you must treat it as if you're dealing with race and religion (so says chief justice Ronald George himself). And they did not grant this on a "temporary" basis. They did not put in caveats. They, working from a place of reason, opened a door that should've been opened long ago, and they did not -- DID NOT! -- put in conditionals under which it could or should again be closed!
Should the flawed, cruel, un-American, someday-to-be-recognized-as-a-great-historical-misstep known as Proposition 8 pass this November, that STILL won't make marriage equality a "temporary" concept. Why? Because this long-overdue ball is a'rollin, and there is zero chance of ever stopping it. Any ban, initiative, amendment, provision, stipulation, loophole, or whatever that gets in its way between now and the day we reach our total freedom? Well those are simply feet-dragging roadblocks that will inevitably be struck down in some way shape or form. And it's these roadblocks, along with the falsely compassionate, discrimination-masking, code word-laden "protect marriage" movement that has installed them, that are the fleeting concepts in American history.
Bruce Hausknecht might feel comfortable counting his marriage-banning chickens before they've hatched. What he needs to realize, however, is that no amount of fledgling chickie tweeting is gonna drown out the peaceful, soothing drumbeat of justice that's already guiding future generations towards their much-deserved freedom.
I am still of the opinion that prop 8 should be challenged (and hopefully disqualified from the ballot) based on the fact that it has already been declared unconstitutional.
The California Supreme Court did once before strike down a voter approved amendment, Proposition 14, on the basis that it was unconstitutional. That was back in the 60's. And, in that case as well, the unconstitutionality of prop 14 was that it violated equal protection (was discriminatory). In that case, however, the disposition of the case wasn't known until after the amendment was ratified by the voters - then the court heard the case and stepped in.
For Prop 8, we already have the CA Supreme Court's ruling on prop 22 which has exactly the same wording as prop 8 (as I recall), and it has already been determined to be unconstitutional on the basis that it violates equal protection. That, by and of itself, might be sufficient to disqualify the amendment from the ballot.
BUT, I could fully understand the court taking the position that they would NOT disqualify the amendment from the ballot, because until it is ratified (god forbid) it is a moot issue (meaning that it isn't a law, just the possibility of a law) and courts generally won't consider moot issues. I, personally, wouldn't consider it moot, but the court might.
On the other hand, if it is ratified, I would expect the court to overturn it before it even becomes effective. And then the issue would go to the US Supreme Court. In the 60's the US Supreme court upheld the CA courts decision on prop 14, so (with fingers crossed) the likelihood that they would again stand with the California court is probably pretty good - but you never really know.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 16, 2008 9:57:58 PM
Nice food for thought, Dick. Thanks.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 16, 2008 10:22:43 PM
Dunno, not a very nice thought that it would go to SCOTUS. Not in this century. Hmmmm, maybe I better go back and make that $5 donation Barack wanted (well David P wanted) this AM.
Fun to counter the boycott though. Caramel iced coffee, fishmich and apple pie (2 actually one free.)...and no the manage hadn't seen any downturn to business.
Posted by: LOrion | Jul 17, 2008 10:04:25 AM
LOrion, I have heard that one of the supreme court justices said that if the issue of same-sex marriage came to them, that they would have no choice but to legalize it. I could be wrong. I'm just saying that we shouldn't panic at the prospect of a federal case.
Can someone confirm whether or not on of the justices said this?
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Nov 10, 2008 1:42:01 AMcomments powered by Disqus