Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Mero: Making up history to prove his point

This is from a couple of weeks ago. I have meant to post it, but with a death in the family and a few other things, blogging has taken a back seat.

However, I just wanted to point out how the Conservative Agenda will re-write history to prove their point. From Sutherland INstitute's Paul Mero, in a comment to this post:

Utah does have Amendment 3, thank goodness. But a constitutional amendment can be repealed. What would that process look like? Well, what did that similar process look like in CA? It looked like a court amassing mountains of state and local code and ordinances and concluding 1) that a constitutional amendment could very well be unconstitutional and 2) the track record throughout the state in regards to gay rights seemed clear enough for the Justices to wonder out loud why gays shouldn’t be afforded the status of legal marriage.

There was no logical fallacy of a “slippery slope” in play. The precedents were all very logical to the Justices, so much so they were baffled why the status of marriage shouldn’t be bestowed on same-sex couples.


First, for the love of Pete, can we stop calling it "Amendment 3?" That is not it's name. It's name is Article I Section 29 of the Utah Constitution.

Secondly, California did not have a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting marriage until November 2008. In 2000, California residents passes Proposition 22 (2000) which, in the same 14 words used in Proposition 8 (2008), prohibited California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

However, Prop 22 (2000) amended California Code, not the California Constitution. So, therefore, you are wrong, Mr Mero. It was not the Constitution that was found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, had it been the Constitution that was unconstitutional, what difference would Prop 8 (2008) had? It, too, would be struck down by the courts, pretty quickly,too.

-Bob

source:
wikipedia: California Proposition 22 (2000)

4 comments:

Oldenburg said...

Perhaps Mero is talking about the David Boies/Ted Olsen suit in federal court that seeks to overturn Prop 8 on Federal Constitutional grounds (as opposed to state constitutional grounds). That case is set for trial next year, having survived a motion to dismiss from fellow traveler of Mero's. Unlike Mero, however, this guy admitted to the judge that there was no real harm to allow same-sex people to marry.

Still, this case will have to go up to the US Supreme Court before Prop 8 (and "Amendment 3" et al) can be overturned as violative of the US constitution. Currently, I don't even know if there is 1 vote on SCOTUS to support Boies-Olsen's position (you need 5).

This is why the gay rights activists are pissed off at Boies/Olsen for bringing this suit "too soon" and undermining their state-by-state strategy.

Paul Mero said...

Actually, Brother Bob, the challenge to Prop 8 (after Prop 8 was passed) was based on it being unconstitutional in substance along with it being unconstitutional in process.

But me thinks you're skirting my point: what you, and others, call a "slippery slope" is what I call a logical legal process. BTW, so do gay political and legal strategists who invented the plan.

What I'm saying is that a constitutional amendment isn't the final word in this politicized and litigious day and age (as much as I would love it to be). So, yes, I'll continue to fight keeping Utah from sliding down the slippery slope of logical consequences cleverly crafted by gay legal scholars and their friends.

And we call it Amendment 3 still because that's what most people remember.

Paul Mero said...

One other thought...political momentum means a great deal to SCOTUS. The fewer political and cultural signs of acceptance of gay rights, the less chance that SCOTUS will jump to change things (for the worse).

So, again, I'll keep on fighting.

Anonymous said...

some flashcards