





After California voted to overturn legalization of gay marriage, members of other minority groups wondered if this signaled the beginning of a new era of discrimination. Although its proponents present it as “protecting” the institution of marriage, not an act of hate, the vote was targeted at a minority group so it can be conceived of as discrimination. The question since asked by many legal scholars, is whether the passing of Prop 8 will make it easier for other “discriminatory” laws to pass. And honestly, they might be right to be concerned. Hey, who likes interracial marriage! Raise your hand up high! Well, did you know it was still illegal in America as late as 1967? And specifically talking about discriminatory laws in California, legal scholars pointed out that the state used to have a ban on Asian-Americans owning land.
“It is not hypothetical. It’s a track record,” said Stanford University law professor Jane Schacter.
The central discussion revolves around how much power should be given to “the majority.” Of course defining “the majority” is tricky in and of itself, since voting reflects the opinions of those who were able and willing to vote, not what 100% of the population thinks. But the question is whether the majority-vote should be the deciding factor when making constitutional amendments. “Inherent” civil rights are slippery little bastards, since once established, everyone agrees they’ve always been self-evident and basic, but the fact is they change wildly throughout history.
One group of minority leaders wrote a brief challenging the passing of Prop 8, writing that;
“The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities.”
Law Professor David Cruz added:
“[The courts] could take away any right from any group.”
Others argue it isn’t likely, since California is otherwise a liberal state. Ah ok, so it’s cool to hate on teh gayz, but not other minorities? Well we guess civil rights should be based on popularity, after all, not on silly things like being a human or the separation of church and state.
What do you think- does the passing of Prop 8 pose a threat to minorities in general?
Minorities fear trend from California gay marriage ban [Reuters]

um yessss. i completely agree with those quoted above. the court could set a dangerous precedent by allowing this amendment to stick around. please please please find that it’s a constitutional revision and please please please find it thusly invalid.
i think these little tidbit sums it up well. i only wish i could say it as well. introducing my legal hero, eva patterson:
“We would be making a grave mistake to view Proposition 8 as just affecting the LGBT community,” said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society. “If the Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to take effect, it would represent a threat to the rights of people of color and all minorities.”
AND:
“Proposition 8 contradicts the most basic protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, which is the right to equal protection of the laws,” said John Trasviña, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “We can not allow the Constitution to sanction discrimination against one group of people.”
AND:
“We cannot become a society that picks and chooses who is entitled to equal rights,” said Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State NAACP. “We should include all people from all walks of life in the entitlement to all freedoms now enjoyed by the majority of our population. As a civil rights advocate, we will continue the fight of eliminating roadblocks to freedom.”
AND:
“Consistent with core equal protection principles, minority communities must not be stripped of their fundamental rights by bare majority rule,” said Karin Wang, Vice-President of Programs for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. “California went down this path before when the majority population chose to bar interracial marriages involving an unpopular minority: Asian immigrants. The state Constitution exists exactly for this reason - to protect the fundamental rights of minority communities.”
Posted by calitexican | November 24, 2008
I agree also. However, as stated, inherent rights are tricky and, although they should be obvious, they change often.
In my humble opinion, these changes occurs because the groups seeking these rights and protections are often changing (or at least how the public perceives them is changing).
Any way…just rambling.
Posted by DC | November 24, 2008