Date Set for Proposition 8 Hearings

[ismnotwasm]

California’s Supreme Court announced this week that it will hear arguments on March 5 of this year in a case that considers the constitutionality of the Proposition 8, which eliminated same sex marriage in the state when it was approved by voters in the 2008 elections. The proposition, which passed 52 percent to 48, overturned a May 2008 ruling of the state Supreme Court that legalized same sex marriage.

According to the New York Times, the state Supreme Court will consider the legality of the nearly 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed in California before Proposition 8 was approved by voters. The Court will also consider the question of whether same sex couples have been denied equal protection under California's state constitution.

A number of amicus briefs have been filed in the case, including one from the Feminist Majority Foundation, National Organization for Women, and California National Organization for Women that supports legal challenges to Proposition 8. This brief argues that if Proposition 8 goes into effect, it will jeopardize not just the rights of gay couples to marry, but fundamental constitutional rights for women including the right to decide whether or not to bear a child, the right of sexual privacy, and the right not to be discriminated against in employment. The brief states that it "would be a dangerous precedent that may lead to a downward spiraling slope leaving no fundamental right…safe from the whims of the voting majority."

According to the Los Angeles Times, the court has received 43 amicus briefs from a range of groups arguing that Proposition 8 should be overturned and 20 briefs from religious and legal groups arguing that Proposition 8 should be upheld.
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11514

Of note, Phyllis Schlafly disgusting campaign against the ERA had quite a bit to do with denying Gays Human Rights. I'm posting this link, but its right wing insanity so be warned. It explains the mind set of these morally impaired sociopaths. I'm looking for a much older link that described the matter from a rw POV, no less insane, but a bit more concurrent when Schlafly was doing her evil nonsense.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200602080754.asp
Edit; Ewww, ewww eww. I found a few sites with titles like "Sarah Palin, A prettier Phyllis Schlafly?" "Sarah Palin Phyllis Schlafly with better make up?" Good God.

Ok one more edit. Notice this divide and conquer tactic of the rw politics? Gays vs women, Gays vs blacks. Gays vs churches? Disgusting assholes.

[bliss_eternal]

1. Apparently the divide and conquer tactic was lost....

...on many DU'ers, including a few (alleged) "feminists," which surprised me to see. But I guess for some, feminism is about their personal rights as women, and the threat of rights that affect them most as human beings--not the whole "equality for all" thing.

People who've in the past kicked much electronic ass regarding women's issues, clearly had no problem jumping on the "blame the brown people" bandwagon. :puke: Because of course, "...I have proof, brown people have been mean to me---because I'm_(fill in the blank)__." Call them on it and,"....Oh. My. Gawd. How dare you call me a racist?!"

Well guess what? None of is immune from negative experiences at the hands of other human beings--whether they are white, yellow, brown or some blending of all of the above. Using the race, gender, color or creed of people as the basis of conclusion about an entire group of people is discriminatory. At least that's what feminism has taught me.

Either way, thank you for this...the links and the discussion. :thumbsup:
I'm very happy (and relieved) to see this is moving forward. It's very scary that despite our best efforts (campaigning, donating funds, voting, etc.)that groups outside of our state (Texans, the LDS) were allowed to pour money into this campaign to influence the outcome. I hope that's never allowed again.

I also hope that more people take the time to diffuse media messages, not just the one's they identify with personally, as they address some aspect of their idenity.

[ismnotwasm]

2. Searching around,

I saw more than one rather irritatingly smug "The ERA had nothing to do with Gay marriage!" posts from (more or less)Feminist bloggers, who apparently don't share my particular brand of irony, or perhaps didn't want to widen that particular type of thought process in the arguement for Gay rights.



I agree who you wholeheartedly, BTW. Great post
:hug: