Prop H8 err 8 — California Supreme Court & Strauss v Horton
[This was recoded as a free flow thought process, there was no scripting of…
I don’t know what insanity took over me to actually send this, but I just mailed the following letter to 365Gay.com‘s submission department, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
I am a life coach and spiritual teacher, not a legal scholar in any sense of the word, but I have been wondering about this legal question ever since I heard about the ballot initiative that became Prop. 8 after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop. 22.
If there is any validity to the questions, I would appreciate if this could be forwarded to someone who could put it to good use.
As you know, in 2000 California voters passed Proposition 22 which placed the following text into the California Family Code as Section 308.5:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
This single line of text was overturned by the California Supreme Court as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution.
Proposition 8 placed the exact same text, literally, into the State Constitution as Article I, Section 7.5. Now the questions are as follows…
- Since this line of code has been determined to be in violation, does it cease to be in violation now?
- Does it make a difference that this exact code was found to be invalid before it was even qualified as a ballot initiative? I think this may be the first time that a law has been added after being declared unconstitutional.
- In what ways would this invalidate Proposition 8 and if nothing else, does this create any kind of Constitutional Crisis since it introduces an ambiguity into the Constitution?
- If the above is correct, how does one go about bringing this to the attention of of the Supreme Court, or whatever process this has to go through to have it ruled upon?
I have heard several cases are being brought into the court, but they seem to the same old cases that never seem to go very far very fast. This would seem to be the most direct and expedient path if it is valid.
Once again, if this is of any validity, would you please send it on to anyone who can make use of it.
Robert A. Burgener
We will see if I get any responses…