Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing

Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.

Thursday, June 26, 2008


Kevin Norte, a research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court was the first legal analyst to publish articles on the “revision versus amendment” position since the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on May 15, 2008 in the In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757. Norte’s articles were published on May 21, 2008 and June 17, 2008 editions of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
Norte has commented on the writ matter entitled BENNETT v. BOWEN (HOLLINGWORTH) S165420 filed on June 20, 2008 which seeks to remove the “Limit on Marriage” initiative from the November ballot. The Court has requested that the oppositions be filed by June 30th and the reply by July 10 and the Legal Analyst believes the Court, at a minimum, will issue an alternative writ and a stay removing the initiative from the November ballot pending a determination or, he surmises that the Court may even break tradition and hear the matter in July or August even though the Court is not traditionally in session during those months. Norte believes the measure will eventually be removed from the ballot and the Court will further expand the legal precedent by setting forth the criteria for what can and what cannot be on a voter initiative ballot in California
The Superior Court research attorney noted that the “right to marry” itself is not expressed in the California Constitution but is implied by legal precedents. To accept any amendments limiting the right to marry would open the doors to limit an implied constitutional right by amendment and not revision. Furthermore, Norte even pointed out, prisoners under Legislature v. Yu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492 would have more rights than same gender couples if taken to an illogical extreme.

The Legal Analyst expressed the opinion that the the problem with the Limit on Marriage proponents’ position is that in a constitutional democracy, equal protection and fundamental rights cannot be put to a popular vote. While not raised in his articles, Norte sees a similarity between the “Limit on Marriage” initiative and the City of Riverside anti-gay initiative that was removed from the ballot because it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Citizens For Responsible Behavior v. Superior Court (1991) 1 cal.App.4th 1013.) Otherwise if permitted, Norte opines, “the people could adopt an initiative barring Jehovah’s Witnesses from doing door-to-door proselytizing, or barring Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in public schools. This initiative raises a whole host of issues.”

In Norte’s most recent article he stated, “One may wonder if an initiative that was submitted to the Secretary of State and its language approved by the Attorney General, and reviewed by the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance and stated that the initiative “would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments is valid due to the findings of the Supreme Court subsequent to the petition being circulated. Prior to the case it was true there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state” was valid. Subsequent, however, to its circulation but prior to its certification, the California Supreme Court changed the law. Based upon my research, there is no precedent on this issue in California . However, to seek a pre-election review of the initiative, there appears to be only one viable option. That would be a challenge based upon the impropriety of the voter initiative itself.”