Is Proposition 8 Constitutional – or Not? | The Defenders Online

Is Proposition 8 Constitutional – or Not?

Posted By The Editors | March 5th, 2009 | Category: Hot Topics | 1 Comment »

By The Editors

The California Supreme Court began hearing arguments Thursday on the legality of Proposition 8, the controversial ballot initiative voters approved in November that outlawed same-sex marriage. Supporters of the measure, which passed with 52 percent of the vote, claim that the measure is a lawful expression of the will of the electorate. However, its opponents, which include the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, have said that it is unconstitutional. The LDF, for example, maintained in a friend of the court brief that the basic rights of a minority group cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote but rather should require a two-thirds vote of the electorate.

The intensity of the debate over the issue and the law was evident in the size and passions of the throng which gathered at the Supreme Court building in San Francisco for the hearing.

But, of course, those deep feelings have long been evident throughout the society; the California initiative was just the latest development to have provoked heated debate over same-sex marriage. TheDefendersOnline.com presented both sides of that debate in its community forum last December. We reprise that discussion here:

Tags: proposition 8, same-sex marriage

One comment
Leave a comment »

Thaddeus March 8th, 2009 12:04 pm :
“The LDF, for example, maintained in a friend of the court brief that the basic rights of a minority group cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote but rather should require a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

-In actuality that is not what the brief says. If understood correctly the argument being proposed by opponents of Proposition 8 is that because the supreme court of the state of California recognized gay-marriage as a ‘fundamental right’ [not a basic right as you state], a simple majority vote referendum could not alter the state’s constitution. It would require a 2/3rds vote of the legislature, not the electorate as you state, to change the constitution of the state. The effort of the lawsuits is to protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority so to speak by placing a more stringent measure by which minority groups’ rights can be altered.

Note: We encourage everyone from all points of view to participate in discussions pertaining to this post. Please be aware we do moderate all comments. Comments management considers off topic, inappropriate, derogatory or highly offensive will be edited or deleted.