Forced to rely on a factual basis to justify their discrimination against the rights of same-sex couples to marry, the proponents of California's Proposition 8 couldn't hold up in court.
After a California Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that denying marriage to same-sex couples violated the state constitution, a coalition calling itself Protect Marriage convinced 52 percent of California voters that the solution was to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages.
But there's a federal constitution as well and last week a federal judge, Vaughn R. Walker, decided that such restrictions violate the 14th Amendment's provisions for due process and equal protection…
…After that come the rants about the will of the people being thwarted. Someone needs a lesson in civics. You'd think right-wing anger management gurus would understand checks and balances and constitutional protections against the tyranny of the majority.
In America, constitutions are written to protect citizens from irrational and unwarranted discrimination. But proponents of amendments like Proposition 8 aren't using the Constitution to eliminate discrimination; they're using it to put discrimination back in.
Read complete article:http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100810/COLUMN0703/8100310/1097/OPINION
Prop 8 trial witness: Being gay not a choice - Psychologist testifies in case challenging California’s gay marriage ban – AP - January 22, 2010 – msnbc.com
And
No comments:
Post a Comment