The Supremes tackle two marriage equality cases this week, Truthseekers, and each decision promises a profound impression on the social fabric of this nation. The courtroom was packed today as the Justices debated the legality of Prop 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage, effectively reversing the earlier state Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of such legal contracts.
Specifically, today's question before the court is whether or not it is constitutional for a private group (which may or may not be allowed to represent the State of California to begin with) to overturn a State Supreme Court decision using a vote on a ballot.
It is important to remember that the people of California were deliberately deceived about the nature of Prop 8 by wide array of anti-gay advocates -- from the Roman Catholic Church to the Mormons to ultraconservative political action committees -- which blanketed the media with the worst propaganda imaginable, using lies and fear to frighten Californians into believing prop 8 was necessary to protect their children from an advancing "gay agenda" that included forcible teaching of "gay lifestyles" in the public schools.
This tactic would likely fail today, but in the chaos of the 2008 election, with John McCain supporting this kind of discrimination -- and a Black man on the Presidential ticket -- voting for the minority president and what they were misled to believe was a radical "pro-gay agenda" seemed like too much change, too soon, for many Californians. Plus, the Bush Crime Family had successfully tested the "win by fear and propaganda" method for eight years, so it was an easier sell.
How did the Supreme Court become involved in this state issue? Fast-forward to last year; the 9th District Court of Appeals ruled in Hollingsworth v Perrythat Prop 8, now a California state law, was unconstitutional, marking the first time a district court has overruled a state law. This is the legal labyrinth that landed Prop 8 before the Supremes today.
Despite a 58% public approval (and an encouraging 81% approval from the under-30 age group), it is still likely to be a difficult battle for attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies, who argue that any form of state-sanctioned "legal" bigotry is unconstitutional, be it voting rights or marriage rights. (As an aside, this legal odd couple were on opposite sides of the fateful Bush v Gore case that ultimately anointed Dim Son in 2000. What an incestuous little litigious circle lives deep inside the beltway.
| The outcome of today's hearing -- mirrored in many ways by tomorrow's arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- won't be known until July, so we have a long wait ahead of us before we know which side of history the Supremes will embrace -- the lovers, or the haters. At the end of the day, allowing same-sex couples to share the same legal rights as different-sex couples won't cause the sky to fall or the earth to go spinning off its axis; but if the Court instead decides to legalize discrimination, can we say the same thing? |
2
