{"id":370,"date":"2008-11-05T23:44:42","date_gmt":"2008-11-05T22:44:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/nuovosito\/2008\/11\/05\/395-98-ancora-non-definitivo-l-esito-del-referendum-californiano-sulla-proposition-8\/"},"modified":"2019-04-23T19:27:48","modified_gmt":"2019-04-23T17:27:48","slug":"395-98-ancora-non-definitivo-l-esito-del-referendum-californiano-sulla-proposition-8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/?p=370","title":{"rendered":"Ancora non definitivo l'esito del referendum californiano sulla Proposition 8"},"content":{"rendered":"

Il referendum tenutosi in California per introdurre in Costituzione la definizione di matrimonio quale unione unicamente tra un uomo e una donna \u00e8 passato con una maggioranza di 52% a 48% <\/strong>(un scarto di 400 mila voti assoluti). Mancano ancora da conteggiare i voti arrivati per posta <\/strong>(pare circa 2 milioni) che sarebbero in grado di ribaltare l’esito, ma in base a valutazioni statistiche pare che dovrebbero dividersi pi\u00f9 o meno equamente tra i s\u00ec e i no, cos\u00ec da non riuscire a darci questo ribaltamente. Staremo a vedere.
Di seguito il prof. Robert Wintemute, che insegna diritti umani al King’s College di Londra, si pone delle domande interessanti e fa delle riflessioni.
 <\/p>\n

PROPOSITION 8
<\/strong>This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.  This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section …<\/p>\n

SECTION 1. <\/strong>Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
 <\/p>\n

SECTION 2. <\/strong>Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:<\/p>\n

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.<\/p>\n

The location of the new Section 7.5 illustrates the confused and contradictory nature of California’s constitutional bill of rights, which is too easy to amend:<\/p>\n

SEC. 7.  (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California … any obligations … which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the [US] Constitution with respect to the use of … pupil transportation [ie, unpopular court-ordered “bussing” to reduce racial segregation in public schools]. …<\/p>\n

SEC. 8.  A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.
 <\/p>\n

(1) <\/strong>In view of the following exit poll, suggesting that support for Proposition 8 was higher among African-Americans and Latinos, should “the race analogy” have been stressed in the “No on 8” advertisements, ie, the fact that it was the Supreme Court of California, in 1948, that struck down the law banning the different-race marriage of Sylvester Davis, an African-American man, to Andrea Perez, a Latina (deemed white) woman?  See Perez v. Sharp, 198 P.2d 17 (Calif. Sup. Ct., 1 Oct. 1948)(4-3).  (The invalidated law appears briefly in the following video, but Davis and Perez are not mentioned: <\/p>\n

http:\/\/uk.youtube.com\/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE<\/a><\/p>\n

http:\/\/edition.cnn.com\/ELECTION\/2008\/results\/polls\/#CAI01p1<\/a>
 <\/p>\n

Percentages voting “Yes on 8”<\/p>\n

African-American – 70%
Latino – 53%
Asian – 49%
white – 49%<\/p>\n

(2) <\/strong>Was this “THE AD WHAT WON IT” for Proposition 8 supporters (slogan:  “Restoring Marriage & Protecting California Children”), as London’s “The Sun” newspaper might say?<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.protectmarriage.com\/video\/view\/5<\/a> (English)
http:\/\/www.protectmarriage.com\/video\/view\/4<\/a> (Spanish)<\/p>\n

(3) <\/strong>Looking on the bright side, many US state constitutional provisions excluding same-sex couples from legal marriage will probably have to be repealed by referendum before the US Supreme Court will strike down the rest.  California could lead the way:<\/p>\n

2000 – Proposition 22 (enacting “initiative statute” defining marriage as man-woman only; an “initiative statute” is above an ordinary statute or law passed by the state legislature, and below the state constitution) – 61.4% Yes – 38.6% No<\/p>\n

2008 – Proposition 8 (enacting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as man-woman only)- 52% Yes – 48% No (results not final)<\/p>\n

2012 – Proposition __ (repealing Proposition 8) – 48% No? – 52% Yes?<\/p>\n

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2  VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL<\/p>\n

SEC. 8.  (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes [fewer signatures required] and amendments to the Constitution [more signatures required] and to adopt or reject them. …<\/p>\n

SEC. 10.  (a) An initiative statute [or an initiative constitutional amendment?] … approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. … [This means that the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry in California has been TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED from 5 November 2008 until the repeal of Proposition 8.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Il referendum tenutosi in California per introdurre in Costituzione la definizione di matrimonio quale unione unicamente tra un […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[70],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-diritti-lgbti-nel-mondo"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=370"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2261,"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370\/revisions\/2261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/retelenford.it\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}