Calif. high court urged to review Prop 8
State's attorney general says existing marriages valid
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Nov 17, 3:57 PM
http://washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=22475 (http://washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=22475)
California's attorney general is urging the state's high court to take up lawsuits challenging a recently approved constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage in the state.
In his reply to four lawsuits filed against the measure, known as Proposition 8, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday called on the California Supreme Court to review the measure's constitutionality.
"The profound importance of the issues raised by Proposition 8 warrants that this matter be reviewed and promptly resolved by the California Supreme Court," Brown said.
more here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/8786
I'm really happy the courts are expediting the process too, I would love for this to be resolved asap.
Well I think they have to move fast to prevent it from becoming law.
Quote from: tekla on November 19, 2008, 06:26:31 PM
Well I think they have to move fast to prevent it from becoming law.
Actually it's already become law. It did the day after it passed. What they're going to do (or not do) is over turn it and put as back where we were before it passed. They could have agreed to an injunction, which would have put it on "hold" until they made their decision, but they declined to do that.
Considering the Proposition itself is a state constitutional amendment, it would seem that the Proposition can only be disqualified on procedural/technical grounds.
However, and this is a somewhat perverse approach, but let's consider two sort of stipulations put in place, one by the courts, one by the Proposition.
A) Granting marital rights to mixed-sex couples and not to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
B) Granting marital rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
These two assumptions are not mutually exclusive. If Prop 8 is written like how B is written, and not as an explicit contradiction of A, then here is reasoning I can take:
p: The state can grant marital rights to mixed-sex couples.
q: The state can grant marital rights to same-sex couples.
A) (p AND ~q) = False, which holds if either p = False or q = True.
B) q = False
Statement B forces q to be False. In order for A to be true, p must also be False.
In other words, the state cannot grant marital rights to mixed-sex couples. The state courts should deny the legal status of marriage to EVERYONE. Unless there's explicit language in the Proposition affirming a right of marriage to mixed-sex couples (which *would* override the ruling), this conclusion must stand.
Now that would get the attention of these religious goons. :icon_pelvic_thrust2: