Todays ruling in California has made a mess out of their constitution.

[Renew Deal]

I've read the justification for upholding Prop-8 and I understand it. It was predictable. But I think they have created a huge problem. Here is an excerpt of what they said...

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument from gay-rights activists that the ban, Proposition 8, revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298

The ruling seems like a cop-out. They are saying that they don't have the right to overturn prop-8 because it was legally passed. But it also implies that gays don't deserve "equal protection." I don't know what precedent has been set in California regarding this, but it opens the door a "majority rules" method of government. I know some would call this "democracy", but that's not how things work here. The majority doesn't/shouldn't have the right to limit the rights of the minority. To me it seems that the court says that gays aren't "equal."

Aside from that, I think California can subject itself to an endless granting and revoking of rights to people. Prop-8 took away the right to marry. If a prop-9 passes, people will get rights back. And then if prop-10 passes, rights can be taken away again. I think this is where today's ruling fails. If the court decided on behalf of marriage equality, this issue would be settled until and unless the "equal protection" clause was changed. Now we're left with the conclusion that gays aren't "equal."

I'm no lawyer, so let me know if I'm misinterpreting this. But this is how I see it.

[jody]

1. See related DU thread below.

CA Supreme Court on inalienable rights, page 10 of Strauss v. Horton 5/26/09

[freethought]

2. Prop 8 sounds like a quagmire

Rather, a path that leads to a quagmire. IMHO, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. It will be political tug of war back and forth. If you want another issue to which California is bringing attention, go read the Krugman column that he put in the NYT yesterday.

On another note however, I don't see how the USSC is going to keep ducking this issue. The country could wind up looking like a patchwork quilt of some sort...a hodge podge of states that do, and states that don't recognize same sex marriage.