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.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Friday In The Met-News (Proposition 8)


Friday, July 18, 2008
Page 7
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Proposition 8 Masquerades as an Amendment

Dear Editor:

In further commenting on Proposition 8 (See “S.C. Rejects Bid to Remove Marriage Initiative From Ballot,” MetNews, July 17, 2008), I still strongly believe Proposition 8 is a revision masquerading as an amendment. For me, the position is legally certain-a voter initiative cannot strip a protected minority of a fundamental right. Inevitably, the political conclusion will arrive at that same conclusion or otherwise, equal protection means nothing more than the consent of 50 percent plus one voter.

The role of the constitution and the court is to restrain raw majoritarian power-majorities don’t need protection, because they have the political power, in terms of the sheer vote. It is only the minority that needs constitutional and judicial protection.

Right now the determination that Proposition 8, the Limit on Marriage, will proceed to the ballot is final. The summary denial without comment by the California Supreme Court was effective immediately, and there is no opportunity for a petition for rehearing.

The summary denial, however, is not a ruling on the merits and is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition for writ of mandate. If the gay marriage supporters lose at the polls in November, I am legally certain that the revision/amendment issue can and will be raised anew. At that time, the first order of business would be to race into the Superior Court on Wednesday morning (ideally San Francisco Superior Court) with an ex parte application for a TRO.

The amici letter from the dean at Boalt Hall and other academics was a huge contribution and can be the groundwork for this work to resume in November.

Please, do not lose faith in the court-I trust they will step up to the plate if necessary. Right now, they can’t get out too far ahead of public opinion-they need the voters to ratify their marriage decision.

It is a politically savvy move on their part-if the voters reject Proposition 8, the court is vindicated. This way, they don’t want to spend all their political capital at this stage, especially because it is not essential for them to intervene right now.

Remember what happened with Roe v. Wade. That was decided in 1973, 35 years ago; ever since, the U.S. Supreme Court has been under attack.

There are only so many of these volatile decisions that any court can make. Here, Chief Justice Ronald George and the California Supreme Court were not in a position to deliver two gay rights bombshells within a few months of each other in 2008 (and the North Coast case is still coming). There’s already a website to recall the Chief Justice (http://www.rongeorgerecall.com/). We cannot afford to lose him.

Remember, this is just a bump in the road (no cliché, intended). In California at least, the end is in sight.

KEVIN NORTE

(The writer, a research attorney, is an 18-year employee of the Los Angeles Superior Court.)