You may not be a costitutional scholar but that was most scholarly. I have to admit to falling asleep during the later part of the hearing, but think the point was well made by the questions of at least two justices; that the tests of Amador Valley are not exclusive. I got the feeling that George, whom I long ago had an amusing settlement conference with when he was a lowly trial judge, and Kinnard may be adverse on the issue of whether this is a political question not for the court to decide. The other possibility is that Kinnard’s vehement questioning may stem more from frustration with the attorneys failure to better address issues, rather than her own belief in the validity of her questions. (She may actually believe that the court may invalidate 8 on constitutional grounds, without doing so “willy-nilly”.

It came as some surprise to me that no one responded head-on to Kinnard’s questioning. When Kinnard doggedly asked petitioners’ counsel, once all had agreed that the quantitative litmus test was not applicable, how the quantitative test could be applied to the situation, that was, in essence, a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. What was needed was an end-run. Here’s my take:

1) This case was, by general agreement, de novo, a case of first impression. How, then, could precedent be expected to be of more than limited guidance?

2) Prior to Eu, Amador Valley & Livermore, the qualitative and/or quantitative litmus tests to distinguish amendment from revision were not developed. The court determined independent of precedent that a rule needed to be promulgated to help future courts make the distinction. And it is noted in passing that neither decision stated that these were the only two litmus tests possible.

3) The fact that the constitution uses the two words in a distinguishable way, and provides different procedures for each, suggests that the distinction is signifcant, even if not defined. Otherwise, why have two procedures and two words in the first place? The challenge is to, in all relevant situations before the court, to develop such rules as may be necessary for a consistent interpretation.

Justice Kinnard also read pointedly from article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution: “All political power is inherent in the people”. In doing so, she tries to put the will of the people at the ballot box above veto. I believe she should have been called on this:

1) The “political power” of the people, as was pointed out in one of the supporting briefs, is expressed through the people in their highest form, the Constitutional Convention. It may also be expressed through a legislative constitutional revision ratified by the people. The will expressed in a simple ballot measure is of a lessure stature, hence the lower hurdle for passage.

2) Abridging the power of the people to amend the constitution in no way damages or restricts the people from expressing their full Political Power in the ways described above.

3) The people, in Constitutional Convention, created this distinction, and to fail to apply it is to ignore the will of the people.

The court wouldn’t care much for what other states have done, since this is a question of interpreting the California constitution.

He is one of the few left wing nuts who is still pushing the Palin’s fake pregnancy.

http://bojack.org/2008/12/sarah_palins_fake_pregnancy_be.html

I would not accept anything this man says.

This “proposition” threatened children’s sense of safety and belongingness in California. Children’s safety.

Regardless of THIS particular fight, there are way too many fights on way too many fronts for us to conquer piecemeal. The Time is Now – DRAW A NEW LINE in the sand and demand from President Obama and our representatives FULL EQUALITY.

Equality Is Simple When You Simply Include Everybody.

What? Not detailed enough for the lawyers?

OK, we can list repealing DOMA, repealing DADT, include transgender in the ENDA Bill, allow adoption of abandoned children, equality in immigration
issues, recognize our hate crimes as such, equal family/children rights……….whew! See what I mean?

We are EQUAL SOULS in HUMAN BODIES. Could we please STOP discriminating due to the genitalia attached? Plumbing will determine each civil right?! Any separation from the pack is ultimately due to gender (and/or gender roles & stereotyping), and that is SEXISM. I cannot marry Bob because I am the “wrong” gender; if I were a woman I could marry Bob. SEXISM.

And I cannot stress ENOUGH how my own suffering from Marriage Inequality is NOT the reason for wanting or needing equality. I am not something to focus on. But my story, and the stories of countless other Americans desperately need to be addressed in this civil rights struggle. Marriage laws were put in place many years ago in order to PROTECT individuals and their FAMILIES; if they were NOT necessary they would not exist (for heterosexuals). When these laws are NOT in place for ALL OF US, horrible, horrible suffering occurs. My WEBSITE has many examples.

So Americans want to continue denying us what they have already deemed as essential. And many people want us to WAIT…2….5……10…….20……..30 YEARS, depending on the “civil right”, for what WAS and IS our birthright.

I personally have a HUGE problem with that. I cannot wait. I will not wait.

Will you join me on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009, and help me inform the government that WE are eager to be included in the federal tax base as soon as THEY include us in society’s laws? My 5-year-old students could understand this concept: EQUAL = EQUAL

As Americans can’t we agree that there are MANY other important issues to address (like the Economy, Education, Health Care, Poverty & Homelessness, Iraq/Afghanistan…all of these are related), and solving THOSE problems is more urgent than having “Equality Issues” TIE UP THE COURTS for another 30+ years? We will NOT go away.

You keep procreating; we keep popping out. Sorry.

Our representatives have spent years inventing 4-letter words (DOMA, DADT) to restrict us, deny us, demoralize us, and harm our beloved families and children. Enough is enough.

NO MORE. NO MORE.

===========================
The National Equality Tax Protest
– Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 –
===========================