PROPOSITION 8:The Fall of the Evangelical Age and The Rise of The Age of Reason
As soon as attorney general’s office changed the wording of the initiative to now state truthfully that it seeks to ‘eliminate the right’ of same-sex couples to marry, Jennifer Kerns, speaking for the proponents of Proposition 8 said the initiative’s wording could prejudice voters.
The Protect Marriage group said they will file suit to block a change made by California Attorney General. Jerry Brown to the language of the measure’s ballot title and summary.
In prior BLOG Cabin blog entries and pieces in the Met-News, I wrote about whether the proposed amendment was an amendment or an initiative. It is my strong believe that is an improper Constitutional revision masquerading as an amendment.
At this stage it is important to note that Petitions circulated to qualify the initiative for the ballot were circulated prior to the Supreme Court’s historic ruling finding the right to marry a fundamental right older than the constitution. The Supreme Court wisely ruled that the right to marry “has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it. “ It further explained that this fundamental right “in not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.” The petition merely stated that said the initiative would amend the state constitution “to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
But after the May 15th ruling, the entire initiative may be invalid if viewed as retroactive (which the proponents appear to claim) because as to marriages entered into prior to November 5th, it could be argued that it is (1) an ex-post facto law, (2) it would void the contract entered between same gender spouses (See Former Civil Code § 55, [marriage is “a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract. . .].) and (3) constitute a taking under the 5th amendment regarding community proper rights and similar property rights, and clearly violate due process because the individuals affected would never be given their day in Court. Last week the attorney general’s office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.” Logically and legally, this is the only way Proposition 8 could precede. (NOTE- if passed, expect an equal protection challenge by those who were not married by November 4th because the law would arguably violate equal protection. The law would arbitrarily treat those married after Election Day differently be prohibiting those same gender couples to marry.)
Jennifer Kerns, in a Los Angeles Times story called the new language “inherently argumentative” and said it could “prejudice voters against the initiative.”
Protect Marriage want voters to see the same wording even though the law changed on May 15th. This is nonsense because the prior wording stated that it does not change California law. I am not sure what wording they even want. I am taking the position that they are in a no-win situation. If they use the prior language, it may very well spell doom for the entire amendment. It may doom all of it because IT CONTAINS NO SEVERANCE CLAUSE. If they even attempt to claim that it invalidates all current same gender marriages in California, it would most likely doom the entire amendment. If they allow it to proceed with the revised language, the Prop 8 supporters would only have to worry about violating the Equal Protection rights of same gender couples who wish to marry after Election Day assuming it even passes. (Which I doubt.)
What Proposition 8 now does is only eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry and speaks PROSPECTIVELY and not RETROACTIVELY. According to the Los Angeles Times, analysts agree that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult.
The proponents are swimming up stream and trying to swim to a sinking shop. Thousands of same gender couples all over California are now married and the Constitutional protections California provides that this fundamental right cannot be taken away by a mere poorly thought out, homophobic initiative.
I, like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, believe that the people of California are beyond this issue. It is time for the proponents of hate move on and find another enemy to hate. California has withdrawn its “Welcome Mat.” It is the Beginning the End of the Evangelical Age and we are witnessing the Dawn of the Age of Reason.
This is the best analysis I’ve read about Proposition 8!
Comment by Dan — July 29, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
WOW! This is an informative article. It is time for the proponents of revulsion shift on and find another foe to abhorrence.
__________________________________
anrik
California Treatment Centers
Comment by Anrik johnson — July 30, 2008 @ 6:02 am
Jennifer Kerns and the “Yes on 8″ campaign crew invite you to attend their August 14th Open House in Irvine:
Here’s the invite
RSVP Juliet@schubertflintpa.com
I’m wondering if those who’d deny civil rights to others don’t deserve to get their parties crashed?
“Yes on 8″ RSVP? Need your advice.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 2, 2008 @ 7:06 pm