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.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

#Prop8 Equal Protection Delayed Is LIBERTY Denied.


Proposition 8 Cannot Be Logically Appealed.

When the sovereign decides the trial court in a civil rights action is correct and decides not to appeal, can a third party usurp the sovereign's rights and step in the shoes of the sovereign and appeal the action? The California Supreme Court will rule on whether sponsors of the Proposition 8 initiative (aka #prop8) have "special rights" under state law to defend the measure denying civil rights in court when the sovereign (here Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown) refuse to do so.

The sovereign agreed with the Federal Court that the State of California violated the rights of the members of the lgbt community. Because the sovereign agreed with the Federal Court, they, as sovereigns, decided not to appeal the decision. The question to be answered is "Can there be a right to a private attorney general to appeal the civil rights action?"

In particular, does a third party, namely, Focus On Family, who paid for the ballot initiative to remove civil rights by a simple majority vote to a discrete minority (gays and lesbians) have the right to appeal?

The question is can private individuals ever pursue or buy an appeal to remove an individual's civil rights by a simple majority vote of the state's citizens.

California has a long history of statutorily authorizing so called "private attorney general statutes" enabling individuals to act where the State does not act. In these circumstances, the individual is permitted to step into the shoes of the sovereign based upon statutory authority.

In civil rights cases is no statutory provision that permits the rules for a private attorney general statute to apply. Nowhere in the history of California where the sovereign has agreed with the Court that civil rights have been violated has the government allowed a third party to step into the shoes of the sovereign.

The California Supreme Court held that there a power of the people is to vote to remove the civil rights of those you disagree with. Now the California Supreme Court has to rule on whether Focus On Family has the right to second guess the decisions of the governor and attorney general on matters of civil rights. In this context, it appears that they will inherently be ruling on whether civil rights up for sale in California. It is morally and spiritually disgusting that the California Supreme Court even has to wonder what the correct answer is. Harvey Milk, the Martyr Saint of Castor Street must be turning over in his grave on this one.

On September 6, 2011, the California Supreme Court should make the correct decision. That decision is that Civil Rights in California are not up for sale and that privately financed "private attorney general" appeals regarding Civil Rights cannot be bought or sold in California.