It is still difficult for me to see California's government unwilling to give full marriage rights to the same-sex couple community; the Supreme Court hearing on March 5th did not look very positive for those against Proposition 8.
In fact - and we're going to find, its not some minor point - it was not the government of the State of California, but, rather - the people of the state of California who voted to change the Constitution (twice now, in fact). The State was going to play along, and the case the Supreme Court heard was decided on pretty much the same grounds that the Iowa case was this last week (and other before it) on issues of due process.
Now, Iowa - and props to them, I lived there for a long time - has its court case, but dollars to doughnuts, if (and few states permit this, for obvious reasons) the people of the State of Iowa, were to vote on it, it would not win, and in fact, would lose huge. It would lose much larger than the point spread in Cali.
Matter of fact, name me one state you think this would win in an open ballot? (correct, if you guessed Vermont, maybe, just maybe - Hawaii too, for very different reasons).
it took away a previously held right from a minority, simply because that minority chooses to love people of the same sex as themselves.
Ooooh, and how long did they hold that 'right'? Not very long. Its not like rolling back some long standing right or privilege. Let's review, shall we?
Feb, 2004 - Gavin Newsome, reading (correctly as it turns out) the statue on who gives out marriage licences, decides that he can make the law what he wants and begins issuing marriage licences for "Party 1 and Party 2" instead of "Bride and Groom" thus kicking off "The Winter of Love" in SF. Gay couples from across the US flock to our little Sodom and Gomorrah by the Bay, and the lines around City Hall go 'round the block. That lasted a month before the Supreme Court of Cali told them to knock it off. Still, given things like the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, those marriages - being performed as legal government functions, were allowed to stand.
Then, in 2005 the State Ledg approved gay marriage, but Arnold vetoes it. But the court cases keep on coming, and in 2008 the State Supreme Court finds that a) domestic partnership is not the same as marriage and then in May found that the Constitution of the State of California guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. That was overturned in November by the voters of the State of California (in one of the largest turnouts ever for an election in California) by voting to amend the Constitution of the State to prohibit gay marriage.
So, one month, then five months - not exactly long standing rights.
And credit where credit is due, and blame where it's deserved. The anti-8 people didn't run a campaign, they ran a 3 month victory party, and you can't do that until the votes are counted. They underestimated the opposition in a way that is pretty much mind blowing when you get down to think about it. That powerful churches could not a) raise money, and b) organize people, is pretty much dumb all over.
In fact, other than the marriage deal (and not even that, gay people can get married, its just not recognized by the State, and if they file for DP benefits they have ALL THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS as people, at least on the State level.) So now it falls to Jerry Brown - who was the first governor of California to veto gay marriage, interestingly enough - to try to overturn it. Now, did the state argue for gay marriage? Nope (and, BTW, in few things do our state schools do as bad a job as teaching as the judicial process). If you - or preferably your teachers in this case, had bothered to like say - oh read the court documents and arguments, you'd find that far from arguing gay marriage, the argument was all about if the initiative process allowed such a major changes to the Constitution of the State of California, and, if so, did the Supreme Court of California have the power to overturn a fair and legal election - and at that, only a part of it, as no one was arguing that the Obama landslide in that very same election, on that very same ballot, was also null and void.
In essence, as well as in reality, the real issue before the Court is, 'Does the Court have any legal power to overturn a legal and fair election?' The answer with the single one time exemption in in re Bush v. Gore is no. Never. Nor should it. And who really thinks that Bush v. Gore did our nation any good? Is that what you are arguing? That the Court, a handful of people appointed to their jobs to uphold, protect and defend the law get the right to go around the law whenever they feel like it?
Though it would seem (because it is) a violation of majority rule, minority rights, to rule any other way is to end the idea of majority rule, in reality, to end the democratic process. I fail to see how not letting a few thousand gay couple marry is more important than upholding the rule of law within the democratic process. The greatest good for the greatest number.
And Shades, really. Even given Goodwin's Law, that's a reach. No one is being put in concentration camps, no one is being gassed, or having all their property taken from them, its a silly comparison, on that takes away from that kind of behaviors (Nazi behavior) when they do occur. Matter of fact, what UA is arguing is much closer - that a few people have the right and power to nullify the decisions of the majority.
