Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Response # 2. Inclusivity #17 - Introduction and Background

Los Angeles Times
2008 Jessica Garrison is a Times staff writer.
Prop. 8 leaves some voters puzzled
Confusion reigns in the fight over the effort to ban same-sex unions. Does yes mean no and no mean yes?

Speaking out recently against Proposition 8, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown made an appeal for the importance of protecting the rights of same-sex couples. And then he urged his audience to vote yes on the proposition.

Brown misspoke. He intended to advocate a no vote. But he isn't alone in confusing which side is which. As election day nears, both supporters and opponents of Proposition 8 worry that voters will be confused by a choice that can seem counterintuitive: Voting no on the initiative means voting yes on gay marriage, while voting yes means gay marriage would be disallowed.

"There is confusion on both sides over yes meaning no and no meaning yes," said West Hollywood City Councilman John Duran, who is helping campaign for No on 8. He added, jokingly, that he has heard supporters of the proposition say, "I'm opposed to gay marriage, so I'm voting no, and I'm like, 'Yes, vote no.' "

If Californians, those living in the very center of the debate are confused, what chance do those of us living on the periphery and with minimum legal understanding have to reason what best suits our constitutional rights. Will the Supreme Court get it right?

The simplistic version-
The argument against Proposition 8 has two main assertions.

The first argues that, once the California Supreme Court found that unequal marriage rights constituted a violation of the equal protection clause in the California Constitution; a violation of the right to equality. This argument has no theological or religious bearing on the case other than to affirm that equal treatment under the law is a fundamental value applied to all and can't be denied, even by amending the Constitution.

This leads to the smaller technical argument: Proposition 8 created a fundamental shift in the fabric of the Constitution that it can't be approved by votes alone and requires a secondary legislative approval process.

In a FB Former Salvation Army Officers Fellowship chat site a member posed the question: "I would be interested in seeing a future article on the possible split and division that might occur in the Salvation Army. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land in the USA what will the Army do? What will conservative Officers do? There may be mass resignations or many will request reassignment becoming social welfare officers rather than corps officers (church pastors)."

Our response will not be provided in this article but in Response # 4 and 5.

“A sense of history is not enough on its own. A sense of the social, moral and political trends of the present day is also crucial to the thinking Salvationist. Keeping in touch with, and understanding, the world beyond the often introspective confines of The Salvation Army is absolutely central to our soul-saving and soldier-making mission under God.”  Shaw Clifton (Selected Writing Vol 2 pg. 21)

In my freshman year at university I registered for an ‘introduction to law’ course. My father, then in his mid 40s, had just passed his CPA qualification exam, a number of business law courses, and put his mind to learning Greek in order to read and learn from the original New Testament. He was the consummate hard worker, lifetime learner and a son’s mentor!

I was struggling to understand the concept of certain portions of contract law and I asked him for his thoughts.  He replied, “read, then explain what you understand the passage to mean – then read it again, and in class discussions, listen three times as much as you speak."

It’s very easy to make errors when working with unfamiliar terms, legal concepts and constitutional issues.  A slight error can add up to a serious problem. It's also problematic when media bombards an unwitting and apathetic public with a global value chain, (term borrowed from my Global Marketing lectures) an itiative promoting a centric view of values that highlights the linkages between political parties and other LGBT actors from the global to the local levels of analysis and reconciliation. The GVC initiative seeks to disseminate developments and applications of the  Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. agenda and to foster the development of an international community of global value chain supporters using the tools provided by the internet, print, radio/TV and all other sources ensuring expedience.

Test yourself by explaining the key concepts to your spouse or a good friend as you memorize the sequential key points shared below.

1. On Wednesday, August 4, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and barred its enforcement. Before it was declared null and void by a federal court, it created a new amendment to the California Constitution which said, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

2. Prop 8, officially titled Proposition 8 – Eliminated the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. It was a statewide ballot on November 4, 2008, and voters approved the measure and made same-sex marriage illegal in California.

California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977. That year, the California State Legislature passed a law stating that marriage is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. 

In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman.

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in his city, which were subsequently judicially annulled.

This case, and some others, eventually led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008 of the California Supreme Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22 (defining marriage in California between a man and a woman)

Prior to the May 2008 State Supreme Court decision, opponents of same-sex marriage had already begun their efforts to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot. Their reasoning at the time was that since Proposition 22 was only a statute, it was subject to judicial review in a way that an amendment to the constitution would not be.

That’s it in a nutshell. "Read each passage a sufficient number of times until such time that you understand fully the unique insight necessary and in order that you can recite the concept backwards."

Clearly my dad’s advice would have been very helpful to thousand of California voters.

Prop. 8 leaves voters puzzled

Next- Response # 3. Inclusivity #17 -  Current status breakdown by state-

Sven Ljungholm
On the North Sea

No comments: