===============================

Brandon Said: April 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
But can an Amendment be declared UnConstutitional (i.e. the US Constitution)? I mean to opponents really want a USSCOTUS Ruling on this matter??

——————————–

Yes, Brandon, State Constitutional Amendments can be overturned by the US Supreme Court. For example: Amendment 2 in Colorado which outlawed all state, county and local goverments from enacting civil rights legislation for GLBT citizens. It was overruled in the Romer versus Evans decision.

In fact, the State Supreme Court first held it unconstitutional and then the US Supreme Court affirmed that decision after the state court decision was appealed by the state of Colorado.

——–From Wikipedia——-

History

On November 3, 1992, Colorado voters, with a vote of 53.4 percent, enacted “Amendment 2″, which read:

Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
The amendment was drafted and promoted by the organization Colorado for Family Values, and it would have effectively prevented any laws banning discrimination against gays, and thereby nullified gay rights laws that already existed in Aspen, Denver, and Boulder.

An immediate legal challenge was launched by gay rights groups. On January 15, 1993 the groups were granted a temporary injunction from 2nd District Court Judge Jeffrey Bayless preventing Amendment 2 becoming part of the state constitution, on the grounds of its possible unconstitutionality and possible irreparable harm that would be caused by its implementation. The court scheduled a trial to decide the case.

Before the trial could begin, the state appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. On July 19, 1993, that court upheld the original injunction, on the grounds that Amendment 2 violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, insofar as Amendment 2 denied gays equal rights to normal political processes. Chief Justice Luis Rovera wrote:

“Were Amendment 2 in force [...] the sole political avenue by which this class could seek such protection [against discrimination] would be through the constitutional amendment process. ”

The state Supreme Court demanded that the legislation face “strict scrutiny” and prove that it advanced a “compelling state interest”, and returned the case to the District Court for trial. Judge Bayless found that the amendment failed the test, and ruled it unconstitutional on December 14, 1993.

Colorado appealed to the State Supreme Court, which affirmed the District Court’s decision on October 11, 1994, and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the rest of the article, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

However, I think the softer term
to advance is “Same-Sex Marriage”
and here’s why.

The “slippery slope” argument all
be it very weak, is “If gays can
marry than what’s next?”

Well, “Marriage Equality” seems to
speak to a broad marriage movement
without evoking a name that sounds
a whole lot like the movement to

…oh what’s the nonsense they say?

Marry a boy and his dog.
Marry Three men and a baby.
Marry 2 and a half men
Marry Three’s Company
Marry 1001 Arabian (K)nights

Etc.

Warmly,

Paulie Sabol

But the flawed CA system being what it is whereas a state constitution can be subject to the whims of just any group able to collect enough signatures to shove amendments in front of a majority of voters the CA Supremes are unlikely to undo the dirty deeds of the ballot box.

The image of California has been tarnished in my mind and I do not care to travel there until this madness is undone. Meanwhile, I am seeing Iowa before too long, a state that I have never been to before.

Seeing the kind of argument that Justice Kennard raised in the article above, things probably do not bode well
for giving this amendment the burial it deserves.