August 6th, 2010
I love BTB readers. Yes, courts really can overturn “the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box” when the will of the people is discriminatory:
An interesting historical perspective was found at the Washington Blade contributed by poster Nameless Cynic:
Almost 50 years ago, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination against “colored” renters or buyers. About 2/3 of California voters overturned the Rumford Act when they passed Proposition 14, which, like Proposition 8, amended the California Constitution, this time to say that Californians could refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 14 violated the 14th Amendment, and it didn’t matter if 100% of Californians had voted for it — it was discrimination, and unconstitutional.
Yup. Here’s some background on what led to the Rumford Fair Housing Act to begin with, and you can read up on Prop 14 here. Time Magazine published this article about Prop 14 in 1964. Reitman v. Mulkey established the legal precedent that states could remove a constitutional amendment, even if it were passed by a popular vote, if the amendment supported racial discrimination.
[If someone has the Blade link, please pass it along in the comments so we can give credit where it’s due. Thanks.]
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
S. Wheeler
August 6th, 2010
No but you see, racism is TOTALLY different and the courts were right to overturn THAT voter initiative because it’s wrong. Unlike this one which is different because it targets sexual orientation instead of skin color.
That totally makes it completely different, you see.
jOHN
August 6th, 2010
Makes it different… it is still discriminatory…
Mark F.
August 6th, 2010
Well, it’s stupid to say the courts can’t overturn the will of the people, but one can disagree with their decisions. Not all law is good law.
TampaZeke
August 6th, 2010
If judges and the courts aren’t supposed to interpret law and determine the constitutionality of laws then what exactly is their purpose?
gayatheist
August 6th, 2010
It seems a vast number of Americans don’t realize that one of the main roles of the Judicial branch of the Government is to protect the various minorties from the majority – it’s one of the primary FUNCTIONS of the Judiciary branch, so to call the exercizing of that Constitutional power “activist” is simply ignorant.
Greg
August 6th, 2010
@TampaZeke “If judges and the courts aren’t supposed to interpret law and determine the constitutionality of laws then what exactly is their purpose?”
I can only guess that conservatives think the only purpose is to protect the majority from the minority. They can do that by sending the minority members to jail or by issuing massive fines and damages to people who intrude on the privilege of the majority.
Sadly, as a business student, I’ve met a number of these people.
Oh, and also to strike down RomneyCare–I mean ObamaCare. Because that’s a bad law they don’t like.
Dave in Northridge
August 6th, 2010
Here’s the link, only it’s not from the Blade, it’s from Patt Morrison at the Los Angeles Times, whose column (this is the last paragraph) the Blade commentator pasted from: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/08/proposition-8-judge-walker-and-our-short-memories.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpinionLa+%28L.A.+Times+-+Opinion+Blog%29
Discrimination is discrimination, and I think even this Supreme Court can understand that. By the way, the decision on Reitman v Mulkey, the case described above, was 5-4.
Matt
August 6th, 2010
Very nice article, should give the pro-overturning side a little extra ammo.
John Doucette
August 7th, 2010
Recent polls seems to suggest that the will of the people, at least in Cal., has changed somewhat since the vote on Prop 8.
In part, I think, because people realized that the big money from outside Cal. paid for a bunch of lies and distortions on the issue. People were hoodwinked into voting for what the Catholic and Morman churches wanted. It is only the judges’ job to try and correct things like this.
Lymis
August 8th, 2010
“Recent polls seems to suggest that the will of the people, at least in Cal., has changed somewhat since the vote on Prop 8.”
That doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the will of the RIGHT people. The others don’t count.
I mean, come on, the other people are the ones who think gay people should have legal rights. You’re going to trust people like that to have legal power?
nameless cynic
August 13th, 2010
Yeah, it’s true. I cut-and-pasted that. I googled (I think it was) “california fair housing act” and that was the most succinct description I found. What? I’m supposed to reinvent the wheel every time?
Curse you, Dave in Northridge! Can’t you let me bask in my stolen glory for five minutes?
Leave A Comment