How can anyone "uphold" discrimination?

[Kajsa]

How in the hell is that legally possible?
Didn't that die with the Civil Rights Act
in 1964?

I'm still reeling from the CA.Supremes decision
today.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kajsa]

3. They've got outrage alright,

but it's very organized and systematic.

Not playing into their hands- No Friggin Way!

[sipping radicchio]

4. I am glad you are not going to lie down about it...

Just always keep in mind that things sometimes are not what they seem. I get more and more cynical about politics the older I get.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armyowalgreens]

2. I'm confused and I think you are oversimplify the ruling.

After further reading it doesn't seem as though the court ruled that banning gay marriage was legal. They ruled that it is legal for a majority to amend the constitution.

It seems as though if someone were to challenge the legality of the core purpose of prop 8, the court would strike down the amendment in a heart beat.

[Kajsa]

5. I hope you're right

on this,

"It seems as though if someone were to challenge the legality of the core purpose of prop 8, the court would strike down the amendment in a heart beat."

Then that's the argument it must be countered with.

[anigbrowl]

6. Correct, I think

It's worth bearing in mind that some of the judges who were in the majority on today's decision have explicitly said they believe gay marriage is a Good Thing - but they're only able to rule on the narrow legal question brought by the plaintiffs, and that hinged on the technical status of prop 8 (amendment or revision).

[Kajsa]

7. Then again the question arises,

even though a majority amended the state constitution,
isn't it legalized religious discrimination?

We all know who was behind the 'Yes on 8' movement,
the Mormon church, the Knights of Columbus( Catholic
men's group) and the Fundies.

i.e., would a majority be able to amend the state constitution
to instate any other form of discrimination?

How far would they let this go?

[armyowalgreens]

9. You again are missing the point.

No one is questioning the legality of the support for prop 8 or the legality of banning gay marriage.

The court ruled on the legality of the process amending the constitution. Nothing else.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Many people are missing that same point. Interesting text in the published decision along those

lines as well

[Kajsa]

11. No, I do understand.

'The court ruled on the legality of the process amending the constitution.'

they found the amending legal
and they abided by it.

read my post again,

I'm asking --using this process, amending the state constitution,
how far could voters go in amending basic civil rights, guaranteed
under the state constitution?

I was asking nothing else.

So- I did understand all along.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armyowalgreens]

13. While I think that prop 8 is clearly backed by religious assholes.

I think it would be a lot harder to argue that prop 8 is inherently religious in nature. It shows no support for any religion. The act of banning homosexual marriage is supported by both religious and non-religious people.

I think it is a lot harder to legally argue that prop 8 is violating a church/state separation.

It's a whole hell of a lot easier to argue that it violates equal rights laws.

[Kajsa]

14. It IS violating equal rights laws.

That is my point.

Thanks for your answer.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Discrimination is upheld every day

It depends on whether or not the state or Federal government has decided to make something a protected class. That hasn't happened for gay people, they've only recently won the right to be left alone for merely acting on their sexual feelings with a fellow consenting adult.

This issue is still in its infancy. There was a very long time from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Act that you cite in your original post.

What would make the difference? Leadership. Now is the time for Democratic politicians to show that trait when it comes to this issue. It was the courage of decent white political figures that led to the Act that you cite. Where are the straight-but-not-narrow bold figures of our day?

[Kajsa]

12. Excellent question, Customerserviceguy!

Where are they, indeed?