
Forty-four California state senators and assembly members on Monday signed a friend-of-the-court brief to support lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8, which voters passed last week, banning same-sex marriage. The legislators argue that Prop. 8 "violates the equal protection guarantee" of the California constitution, unfairly stripping away fundamental rights.
The state assembly and senate approved measures to recognize same-sex marriage in 2005 and 2007, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed each bill. California senator-elect Mark Leno, author of the “only marriage equality bills to reach a governor's desk,” and Sen. Carole Migden, both of San Francisco, were among the petitioners.
Advocate.com:
What inspired you to sign the friend-of-the-court brief?
Mark Leno: Well, of course, I'm very close to this
issue, having authored the only marriage equality
bills to reach a governor's desk. But I signed the
amicus brief specifically because I think there’s
great merit to the case that there is a difference
between amending the constitution and revising the
constitution, and that’s our core argument.
This underlines a basic tenet of California’s 150-plus-year-old constitution that’s in our equal protection clause. And that if voters wish to revise our equal protection clause, there is a difference process, which includes not only a vote of the people, but preceding that a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the legislature. The proponents of Prop. 8 did not follow the correct process.
This issue is much bigger than equal marriage rights. It goes to the core of the importance of having a constitution and an equal protection clause. If we start chipping away at our equal protection clause so that some citizens are treated differently and given more rights than other citizens, our very constitutional democracy is at risk. This is a very significant issue.
Carole Migden: We are committed to returning this issue to the courts so that true equity may be granted. California should require more than a majority vote for constitutional amendments. Never before has an initiative been used to abridge civil rights.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.