More Constitutional Arguments Against Prop 8

More in the legal case against Proposition 8, and its the most fundamental of locations yet again.

Remember the Civil War? It not only ended slavery, but it also brought about the most central of amendments to our Constitution, including the fourteenth amendment, of which section one states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clause 2, the long-dormant Privileges or Immunities Clause of the fourteenth amendment, another argument for removing Proposition 8 from the state's constitution.

Understandably, this one particular clause was marginalized through narrow interpretation. But that was almost 130 years ago when that definition happened, perhaps meaning the higher courts of this country need to revisit it.

All of this language is in California's Constitution, too. The state ratified the amendment in 1959, making it part of its own state constitution.

The real debate now is whether Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution, which may be subject to Supreme Court's wrath, or is an actual amendment, which really can't be stricken because it is part of the constitution.

Some of my friends have said several times that the opponents of Prop 8 should back off, and challenge it in 2010 with another amendment to the state's constitution. The argument they make repeatedly is that the will of the people would be thwarted if the courts overturn it.

My problem with that statement? The people and those they elect are so often wrong to the point of extreme prejudice and hatred.

The courts have routinely been there to fix the problems. It's there job to protect minorities from the majority, no matter who the minority may be.

If we take away their right to protect a specific minority group through a constitutional amendment would be even more of an assault on the rule of law than depriving a group of people of equal rights.