Prop. 8 legal challenge
By Matt Artz
Sunday, November 16th, 2008 at 8:35 am in Uncategorized.
Fremont’s City Attorney Harvey Levine has written his report to the City Council about what it can do as far as the Prop. 8 lawsuits.
There are three lawsuits challenging Prop. 8. on grounds that it is actually a “revision” and not an amendment to the state constitution, and was not adopted by the correct procedures. Revisions must first get two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and Senate before getting passed on the the voters.
A lawsuit filed by the city and county of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Los Angeles, argue that Prop. 8 is a revision because it gives “a bare political majorit final say over the meaning of the equal protection clause” in the state constitution.
The petitioners of this lawsuit are seeking the support of other California cities and counties.
Potential council actions are:
1) Join in the litigation as a party (Not sure if that means spending $$$)
2) Write an amicus brief or letter (supporting the lawsuit
3) Simply keep tabs on the lawsuit and see how it proceeds
4) Nothing
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
November 17th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Do nothing! There is no reason why the Fremont City Council should take a stand to support this litigation.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:13 am
There is every reason for our City Council to take a stand on behalf of this issue, they were elected by us and if “us” feel they should take a stand then so be it. The percentage of Yes votes on this issue keeps shrinking over time. The dividing line seems to be age, the older you are the more likely you were to vote Yes on 8. The younger voters are generally less concerned with sexual orientation and with time, everyone will have won the right to get married. The younger voters are watching this one with interest.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Take a stand for Prop. 8. If suddenly contrived “rights” of the sexually disoriented are given higher legal standing than religious freedoms and other rights of society that were won over centuries, then the legitimate rights of everyone are put in jeopardy.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Posting just to make it clear that Douglas is not Doug.
Re: Douglas’ post, it might be worth Googling the word “inquisition” regarding religious freedoms.
Darn, I swore I wasn’t going make further comment on this subject!
November 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Sheesh, saying “sexually disoriented” is completely inappropriate. The fact that someone’s sexual orientation is DIFFERENT than yours does not mean they are DISoriented, orly DIFFERENTLY oriented.
BY the way, “rights” for those of different sexual orientation have no impact on your rights for religious freedom. You are still welcome to believe whatever you want, in regards to religion. How are your legitimate rights put in jeopardy from this?
November 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Lisa, there are many places where marriage relationships impact third parties. With the exception of some creative modernist religions, a GLBT marriage is a desecration of the most important and sacred aspects of religion. We will be either forced to honor a government sponsored desecration, or be subject to potential litigation terrorism. This is already happening in Massachusetts. Elton John said it right – gays don’t have an interest in marriage. There are some activists, however, who do have a desire to trample on religious freedom.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I’m for option #4 – this smells of bandwagon to me.
There’s no reason that Fremont needs to join SF and LA – regardless of how you feel about Prop 8.
I didn’t cast a vote for council people that would/could handle the Prop 8 issue. I expect them to stick to issues focusing on the city of Fremont.
November 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Marriage is a legal contract, and then OPTIONALLY a religious one. After all, getting married in a church is not really getting married unless you have a marriage license issued by the local government, right? And what about people who get married at City Hall?
That’s all that gay people want — the same rights as guaranteed to everyone else. I’m a [non-practicing] Jew married to an Atheist. If marriage is really a religious union only, then my marriage is not legal either, is it?
I’m not trying to be argumentative — just asking for a practical explanation for the points you are trying to make.
I still don’t see specific evidence of how marriage relationships impact third parties. What is it about 2 men or 2 women getting married that specifically impacts YOU and YOUR marriage?
And how is it a desecration? The definition of desecration: “the act of depriving something of its sacred character — or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual.” How does a gay marriage deprive YOUR marriage of its sacredness?
To me, when gay people are allowed to marry, it will STRENGTHEN the significance of my own [28-year] marriage.
November 17th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I’m sure there are gays and lesbians living in Fremont who voted on 11/4 for our lovely major and slate of council members, come on now. I know of a few myself. I love them dearly and am pained they are not allowed to marry the same way I was allowed to marry. My reaction to this reactionary vote for Prop 8 is that it cheapens the whole concept of marriage (for those who still believe in it)if it really is so frail of a thing that allowing two people in love to engage in it will destroy it. I am sorry for all those folks who think they can strengthen marriage by limiting its reach. If anything you should take heart in the realization there are so many adult invividuals in our state who care so deeply about the insitution of marriage. The Yes on 8 supporters seem misguided and in the long run are surely a self defeating crowd.
November 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Lisa, wrote:
“I still don’t see specific evidence of how marriage relationships impact third parties. What is it about 2 men or 2 women getting married that specifically impacts YOU and YOUR marriage?”
You might want to consider the plight of Catholic Charities in MA.
There are plenty of things that don’t effect my marriage directly, but are viewed as immoral and intolerable. Sex slavery, for example. Can we argue that sex slavery is a constitutional right which should be honored by government because it doesn’t effect my marriage directly? Of course not! There are plenty of other consequences.
Anyway, if all marriage is to you is a random contract between random people, then a civil union should be sufficient, shouldn’t it? Why do you want God’s endorsement?
November 17th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Douglas,
You make straw men. You are comparing consensual and loving relationships to rape and slavery. Shame on you.
Marriage is not about religious endorsement. It’s primarily a legal institution, which carries many benefits, social and financial. Giving gays something separate is inherently unequal treatment. We already went through that hate-filled argument half a century ago, and your side, the conservative religious side, lost.
And that link to a story, about a group that quit helping children in order to hang onto their own hatred, does nothing for your argument.