26 May 2009

The California Supreme Court Enshrines Discrimination

The California State Supreme Court has ruled that the majority, regardless of how narrow that majority is, and regardless of their irrational reasons, has the right to negate/remove the civil rights of a minority citizens of of California.

To my friends who have had their civil rights removed, although only in "word" apparently, in the midst of your despair, remember we shall not rest until your rights are restored and protected.

Jesus said, "Whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, you do to me."

On to November 2010 when we shall undo the stain on our state.

The court ruled that the 18,000 same gender marriages are still valid.

The shining start of the CASC is Justice Moreno who issued the dissenting opinion in which he said:
Under the majority’s reasoning, California’s voters could permissibly amend the state Constitution to limit Catholics’ right to freely exercise their religious beliefs (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4), condition African-Americans’ right to vote on their ownership of real property (id., § 22), or strip women of the right to enter into or pursue a business or profession (id., § 8). .....

Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process.

In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
We should all write him and thank him for his clear understanding of this issue.