top
California
California
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Lambda & ACLU File Lawsuit to Toss Prop 8
by $
Wednesday Nov 5th, 2008 7:53 PM
On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief.
On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief.

And the No on 8 campaign has not conceded yet either as California has 30 days to count all the ballots and there can be at least 3 million ballots yet to be counted which could reverse the outcome of Proposition 8 as it is very close. As of Nov 5 at 7:05 p.m., Prop 8 passes with 52% of the vote or 5,387,000. votes

The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Injunctive Relief filed on November 5, 2008 in the California Supreme Court is Strauss v. Horton, Action No. S168047, at
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566226&doc_no=S168047

The full text may be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html

The press releases on this subject from the ACLU may be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html
and
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html

California will continue to honor the 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed before November 4, 2008 as this heinous "Constitutional amendment" is not retroactive.

The Petition for Writ of Mandate is based on the excellent premise that Proposition 8 "is invalid because it would constitute a CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, not a constitutional amendment, and AS SUCH, THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT IT MAY NOT BE ENACTED BY INITIATIVE."

The Petition does an excellent job of discussing the history of civil rights struggles and the necessity of California courts to exercise "their core, traditional constitutional role of protecting the established equality rights of a minority." “If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would strike directly at the foundational constitutional principle of equal protection in a manner that far transcends its immediate impact on a particular group, by establishing that an unpopular group may be selectively stripped of fundamental rights by a simple majority of voters.”

“Such an attempt to mandate government discrimination against a vulnerable minority in our state’s Constitution, and to prevent the courts from fulfilling their quintessential constitutional role of protecting minorities, would work such a drastic change in our constitutional system that it must be regarded as a REVISION rather than an amendment.”

“Proposition 8 opens the door to step-by-step elimination of state constitutional protections for lesbian and gay Californians and, indeed, for other disfavored minorities, perhaps even based on other suspect classifications.” “See, e.g., Martin Niemöller’s now classic formulation of the dangers posed by failing to recognize that permitting the government to discriminate against one disfavored group undermines the freedom of all: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a German anti-fascist preacher imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937-1945.

As labor says, an injury to one is an injury to all.

We, the supporters of the gay liberation movement, both gay and straight, will not rest until gay marriage is legal.

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by Robert
Wednesday Nov 5th, 2008 10:02 PM
Im with you in this fight but why all the inflammatory language in your post? It doesn't make us look good to call everything hate.
by tim
Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 12:25 AM
Coming from the right - it is not about gays it is about a “bible based” theology defending a God ordained covenant from thousands of years ago. Semantics ……..not hate! God has defined the institution of marriage in scriptures long before we where an arrogant country with lawyers etc. You “no on 8” group are looking more and more evil by your response and post election antics. The true issue is between church and state and marriage is a “church thing”. Let it rest – the theological semantics of saying your married is more of an attack on scripture than it is on the people that “try” to follow it. For Christians this is not an issue of judgment - it is an issue of a forced theological defense and it will only drive us apart and force us to fight.
Best regards
Tim
by Just asking...
Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 2:24 AM
Anyone who has studied linguistics or social history knows that a church cannot own a word. No one "owns" a word; language is constantly evolving and the definition of a given word can mean different things to different people. So why is the word "marriage" so damn sacred to the YES on 8 people. If you don't like gays, you don't have to marry them in your church, but everyone should have the right to marry in state sanctioned unions if they want to. Really I have to think the anti-gay marriage contingent is lacking in sophistication and can't think outside their religious belief shaped world view. Respect that different people have different religions AND some have none at all....and stop being so narrow minded.
by Yes on 8 is Hateful
Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 2:39 AM
Seriously. Mormons said Black Americans were not good enough to join the church as full members until YEARS after the civil rights movement, and then it required some weird "revelation" from their earthly church leaders (all male of course). Today they show African americans in their advertisements to proselytize for new members. I call that short-sighted, manipulative, and hateful. Mark my words in about 20 years (maybe less) their leaders will have a sudden "revelation" and we'll see photos of happy, wholesome looking gay couples in their proselytizing commercials.
by chp
Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 6:25 AM
totally. If reading the bible is the main path to divine understanding, then why did so few cultures even have reading until one or two centuries ago? So many times in politics, these people will quote certain lines as 'proof' of what god intended, in the same way you'd quote from a literary or legal book to prove your thesis in a high school essay.
If having this book and being able to read makes certain classes and cultures of humans closer to god, then why does god apparently hate all the people in nonagricultural societies in the americas, Siberia, parts of SE asia, mountainous regions etc. that didn't have script until the transformation of their economy. Why did he give the book to one culture? If people are only saved once they hear the contents of the book, did god ordain colonialism? Also, why didn't jesus write about gay people in the bible. The whole story doesn't hold together.
by $
Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 7:59 AM
We must all remember the precedent of the discriminatory Proposition 14 of 1964, which would have tossed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, referred to on page 33 of the Petition for Writ of Mandate above. In 1964, 65% of California voters approved Proposition 14, which attempted to repeal the Rumford Act which abolished discriminatition in housing based on ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status. (if a heterosexual couple lived together but were not married, it was considered prostitution before this Act passed. Also, many real estate deeds had restrictive covenants prohiibiting renting or selling the proprety to blacks, Jews, and "Orientals." ). CAN YOU IMAGINE, 65% OF CALIFORNIANS, PROUD AMERICANS, SUPPORTED DISCRIMINATION?

This writer easily remembers the battle over Prop 14 as I was a teenager. The battle was all about racism. In 1967, Prop 14 was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, on the same 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection, the principle that was the basis for desgregating the schools, finally supported by the Supreme Court in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. Here is the history, or the trip down memory lane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876158,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Byron_Rumford

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/reference/africanamerican/timelines.html
by a bible reader
Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 11:23 AM
tim, if we supposedly get the definition of marriage from the Bible, which definition are you talking about? Do you mean the kind of marriage like Jacob had, when he was married to 2 sisters (Leah and Rachel) plus their slaves? Do you mean the marriage that King David had, when he married Michal for the political advantage it would give him, and then his later marriage to Bathsheba, after he'd already gotten her pregnant and seen to it that her current husband was killed in battle? Or perhaps your idea of marriage is more in line with that of King Solomon, which allowed for him to have hundreds of wives and even more concubines.

If you're looking for a consistent definition of marriage as between "one man, one woman", don't go looking to the Bible.
by kevin deacon
(kevindeacon7 [at] gmail.com) Thursday Nov 6th, 2008 4:32 PM
that sonds good i am totally for it
by Yet Another Steve
Friday Nov 7th, 2008 10:24 AM
Oh, one gets so tired of these "pick and choose" nitwits who try to justify things "because the Bible says so." First off, the Bible is not the constitution of this country; it's a sort of manual for those who follow the Jewish or Christian religions. And, in this country at least, there's a strong distinction to be made between "My religion says that I must [or must not] ..." and "My religion says that YOU must [or must not]..."

Beyond that, I'll happily take this opportunity to quote something wonderful that went around the Web a few years back, but is still entirely relevant:

***************

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 145.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network