Fran私觀點

三月初，加州最高法院關於Prop.8的聽證會首度開庭後，我本來還在想：抱最後一絲希望、賭最後一點可能......。（三月時我們大家的討論，請見：此）

但是，根據目前得到的最新消息，Prop.8應該就是通過了＠＠

請見：《 洛杉磯時報》的California high court upholds Prop. 8.

San Diego News Network的專欄作家Arthur Salm寫的：  Prop 8 is brain dead.

以及，the California.com的 Dan Brown 的 Prop. 8: Tyranny of the majority.

--- 加州最高法院的判決書，請見：此。

另有一篇Sheila Kuehl 的分析Prop 8 Ruling: The Court Has Lost Its Way，也可一看。

看來加州最高法院的理解赫然是這樣的：that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision on the slim and dishonest statement that same sex couples are not denied legal rights by denying them the "word" marriage.

這簡直是，難怪有人會批評這根本就是腦死嘛！

Moreno法官則寫了不同意見書，他的意見比較合理：

"The question before us is not whether the language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law; we already decided in the Marriage Cases that it does. 

The question before us today is whether such a change to one of the core values upon which our state Constitution is founded can be accomplished by amending the Constitution through an initiative measure placed upon the ballot by the signatures of 8 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election and passed by a simple majority of the voters.  (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) 

Or is this limitation on the scope of the equal protection clause to deny the full protection of the law to a minority group based upon a suspect classification such a fundamental change that it can only be accomplished by revising the California Constitution, either through a constitutional convention or by a measure passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and approved by the voters?  (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.)

For reasons elaborated below, I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus "represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a 'revision' of the state Constitution rather than a mere 'amendment' thereof."  (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221 (Amador Valley).) 

The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities.  It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.  I therefore dissent."

當然，另外有一個看來好了一點的消息，但，最後會如何，終究不能知道。

在同志驕傲月的第一天（06/01），New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn發表聲明，指出，在六月結束前，NY洲將通過marriage-equality legislation 。

（請見：http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid87547.asp）

與此同時，保守派的共和黨前副總統錢尼，也公開發表了對同志婚姻的支持（他女兒是公開的女同志），錢尼說："I think freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, something that we've lived with for a long time in our family."

"I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute that governs this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, at the state level. Different states will make different decisions and I don't have problem with that."

（全文請見：http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/06/01/dick-cheney-no-doubts/）