California Proposition 8 Overturned - implications for Ohio?

It's been a couple of weeks now since Judge Walker overturned California's Proposition 8 as being unconstitutional. I've just had the chance to start to skim through his decision, and it makes for fascinating reading. Well spent Sunday coffee time....

Here's an interesting perspective on how a precedent set in a religious case back in the 1940's regarding discrimination against the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs and played into this decision (I excerpted two bits below as well).

How Jehovah's Witnesses helped kill Prop 8

While we can thank Jehovah's Witnesses for this precedent that aims to prevent tyranny of the majority, it should be noted they don't like gay marriage. They consider it sin and aren't afraid to say so. But not one devoted Jehovah's Witness voted for or supported Prop 8. Jehovah's Witnesses are apolitical. Rather than forcing their beliefs through legislation, they prefer to find converts by sharing a message.

"Fundamental rights," Jackson wrote in 1943 and Judge Walker quoted in 2010, "depend on the outcome of no elections."

- I'm guessing that this will play out at the Supreme Court level, and does this have implications for Ohio's recently amended stance on marriage?

No votes yet

Why can California voters choose to discriminate against one minority group, smokers, and that discrimination passes the "Equal Protection" rule, but choosing to discriminate against another minority DOES NOT pass the same standard? In fact, this ruling specifically outlines that "the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect". Meaning that the ruling specifically supports the rights of minorities under "Equal Protection" but somehow the minority of people who smoke are NOT protected under "Equal Protection".

"Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational
basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians
are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect.
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976)
(noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has
experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been
subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped
characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting
San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See
FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual
orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or
general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21."

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.