EQCA asks court to strike Amendment from ballot
This story, found at the San Francisco Chronicle’s website, has generated over 800 comments already and it is just 10am.
I wonder what our glorious Presidential candidate and constitutional scholar Barak Obama thinks about the headline alone:
Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2008
In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state’s Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone – a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters.
“If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees,” said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups.
Maybe Senator Obama doesn’t believe that LGBT Americans deserve equal protections. Maybe he doesn’t understand how the CA Supreme Court applied equal protection considerations to same-sex couples in their decision.
Maybe…but I doubt it.
I am not willing to play this shell game anymore with politicians. They – Obama / McCain and the parties they represent – can participate in all of the political football tossing they want as they manipulate and spin their way into the Presidency.
I’m withholding my support for them and instead I’m going to back my own interests – my “equal citizenship” is far too valuable to me to allow any politician to fool with. I’m taking this seriously.
If I can’t trust Obama to understand what is at stake in California and do the right thing with all of the historical and intellectual perspective he brings to this election – then why would I believe for one moment that he will act on my behalf on an array of issues once he is elected?
The buck stops here. What side of the line are you on, Obama: equal protections or majority rule?