Weakness, but also some good news

I've gone and read Sac Bee articles again. Not harmful in itself, but I also read some of the comments. Good thing it's a few hours past lunch; I might have upchucked it all.

The California Supreme Court decided to take the cases that several parties have filed challenging the validity of Proposition 8.

"Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said the court asked the parties involved to write briefs arguing three issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

Holton said the court established an expedited briefing schedule. She said oral argument could be held as early as March 2009."

--Sacramento Bee, November 19, 2008

There are a slew of the same ol' comments from folks. But then someone posted these quotations, which gave me a little solace:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the most influential Founding Fathers. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, & subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States & of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's going to be quite a battle, and more ugly things are going to be said. I wish the time and money did not have to be poured into something as basic as civil rights, and particularly the "fundamental right of marriage" (so sayeth the CA Supreme Court).

Civil rights issues belong in the courts, as Jefferson postulated. In CA, though, SC justices must withstand votes to keep their seats. People are rumbling about "recalling" these justices. Maybe because they have characterized them as "liberal activist judges from San Francisco." The characterization is flat-out wrong. The Chief Justice, for example, is a Pete Wilson (R) appointee; Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdeger were both George Deukmejian (R) appointees. All three signed on to the majority opinion in the In Re Marriage Cases this year.

Maybe it's about justice. Not, as my Property Prof in my first year used to say, "Just Us."