“What Proposition 8 accomplishes, if it were upheld by this court, is to establish the constitutional principle that a majority can take away a fundamental right from a group defined as a suspect class” that has already suffered a history of discrimination, said Shannon P. Minter, lead counsel for those petitioning the state’s high court to invalidate the measure that redefined legal marriage.”
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justice Joyce L. Kennard pressed Minter to explain why Proposition 8 opponents believe the initiative was an illegal revision of the state Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Legislature rather than the simple electoral majority that narrowly passed the measure.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar also asked Minter how the initiative changed anything other than the “nomenclature” of gay marriages as the state continues to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples.
Minter replied that deprivation of the right to have same-sex marriages “of equal stature and dignity” accorded opposite-sex couples represented discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
More reportage here and here and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/us/06marriage.html?_r=1&hp.
We welcome your feedback.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
Terms of Service
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.