Today on Libertia :
"The culture war is back": so begins the website The Politico on the ruling of the federal court in San Francisco, here admirably analyzed by Annicchino Pasquale, who has ruled unconstitutional the ban on same-sex marriages in California. When will the Supreme Court of Washington, the question deflagrerà opening an ideological clash of the kind from which the current occupant of the White House is usually held at bay with the same intensity with which his predecessor loved splashing around.
There is something fascinating to retrace the steps that led to this point. In 2000
citizens of what was approved - with a majority of 61%, so even with the vote of many Democratic voters - the proactive referendum Proposition 22, which introduces a family-law definition of marriage as the California "union between a man and a woman. "
After five years, first in 2005 and a second in 2007, the local parliament passed a law in Sacramento opposite sign of that - the first case in U.S. history - redefines marriage as "civil law contract between two people. " Twice the law is passed, and twice Governor Schwarzenegger exercises its power of veto in defense of annulling the popular will expressed through the referendum of 2000.
The third round in June 2008: California Supreme Court annulled as unconstitutional (as opposed to the California Constitution), the law approved by voters in 2000. It was a first time introduced through the courts the opportunity to celebrate in the true state marriages between same-sex couples.
The question is put to a vote again in November 2008, the day of the election of Barack Obama in the White House. The new referendum, "Proposition 8" (the then Democratic candidate, while saying he was "personally" in favor of the most compromise recognition of civil unions, condemned as "discriminatory"), seeks to re-introduce the same rule as approved by Proposition 22, "but this time not by ordinary law, but with an amendment to the Constitution of the State in order to remove it from the interpretive power of judges Constitutional Golden State. While the vast majority (over 60%) of the citizens of California gives its electoral votes to Barack Obama, one more small but absolute majority of that electorate (more than 52%) approve the referendum, so that gay marriage will disappear again from ' California legal system - except for about eighteen thousand marriages celebrated wildly in the first half elapsed between the decision of the Court and approval of the referendum, remain valid.
last chapter. In May 2009, the ladies Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir Anagrafe ask Alameda County to register their marriage. Not an impromptu act, but the first step of a clear strategy planned by a team led by Chad Griffin, a leading political strategists of the American gay movement. The inevitable refusal is challenged before the Federal Court in San Francisco and created the "case against Perry Schwarzenegger, ended with the ruling of last week.
The third round in June 2008: California Supreme Court annulled as unconstitutional (as opposed to the California Constitution), the law approved by voters in 2000. It was a first time introduced through the courts the opportunity to celebrate in the true state marriages between same-sex couples.
The question is put to a vote again in November 2008, the day of the election of Barack Obama in the White House. The new referendum, "Proposition 8" (the then Democratic candidate, while saying he was "personally" in favor of the most compromise recognition of civil unions, condemned as "discriminatory"), seeks to re-introduce the same rule as approved by Proposition 22, "but this time not by ordinary law, but with an amendment to the Constitution of the State in order to remove it from the interpretive power of judges Constitutional Golden State. While the vast majority (over 60%) of the citizens of California gives its electoral votes to Barack Obama, one more small but absolute majority of that electorate (more than 52%) approve the referendum, so that gay marriage will disappear again from ' California legal system - except for about eighteen thousand marriages celebrated wildly in the first half elapsed between the decision of the Court and approval of the referendum, remain valid.
last chapter. In May 2009, the ladies Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir Anagrafe ask Alameda County to register their marriage. Not an impromptu act, but the first step of a clear strategy planned by a team led by Chad Griffin, a leading political strategists of the American gay movement. The inevitable refusal is challenged before the Federal Court in San Francisco and created the "case against Perry Schwarzenegger, ended with the ruling of last week.
The college hired legal advocate for the cause is a masterpiece of communication politics: it is at the head Ted Olson, a famous lawyer who defended the conservative Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra, and then he was the defender of Bush's son when he collided with Al Gore before the Supreme Court on the outcome of the presidential election of 2000 (Bush later appointed him as solicitor general, the head of the State Advocacy). Olson - who has remarried at 63 years old, after losing his first wife in the massacre of 11 September 2001 (traveled hijacked plane into the Pentagon) - said not consider this a battle "left", but on the contrary, a conservative backlash in the sense that the value of a traditional institution such as marriage is also recognized by the gay community to the point of request to gain access.
As a co-defender has chosen (or found?) David Boies, famous lawyer to represent democracy in 2000 represented Al Gore in the case against Bush before the Supreme Court, and was defeated by him.
The Republicans were well aware of the existence of this "flaw in the system" and had tried to get my hands on in 2006, with the "Federal Marriage Amendment " who would intervene on the U.S. Constitution in the same way as the "Proposition 8 "California did with that. The law, however, was rejected by the Senate, thanks to the defection of some Republican Senators (Among them the future of the White House candidate John McCain), many of whom voted against it because they do not favor gay marriage, but because hostile to the encroachment of legislative power "central" in an area reserved for the legislative autonomy of individual states.
Given this autonomy, gay marriage today is already guaranteed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire and the District of Columbia that is in Washington.
The real problem is that always wins in court, but always comes defeated at the polls. It 'been subjected to a referendum in 31 of the 50 states, including the liberal New York, and in all - diconsi: everyone! - The 31 cases was surely rejected by the voters (in the last elections similar to the Californian referendum were held in Florida and Arizona, with identical results).
must be said that civil unions are recognized in five states (including the very California, where they are called "Domestic Partnership"), which allows gay couples access to benefits otherwise reserved for spouses in terms of welfare , taxation and privacy. Moreover, in a dozen states, including New York, Florida and California itself, same-sex couples have the possibility to adopt children (the star of the lesbian couple because "Perry against Schwarzenegger" all it is raising four adopted).
The stakes are then represented by twenty-seven Member where gay marriage is banned, which are not required to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in other states, thanks to the " Defense of Marriage Act" passed in 1996 (in full Clinton was, but with Congress firmly in the hands of the Republicans).
There was also an attempt to "clone" the company here in Italy, in April 2009 when the Court of Venice, to decide a case brought by a gay couple against the City lagoon that had refused to publish their of marriage, went back to the Constitutional Court the question of legitimacy Articles of our Civil Code that prevent the marriage between homosexuals. In the following months is queued to the Court of Appeal of Trento and Florence, and the Court of Ferrara. Not coincidence, but a campaign carried out under the banner of "Civil Claim" by the "Certain Rights" related to the Radical Party. In April this year, the Constitutional Court rejected all appeals, arguing that recognizing same-sex couples is indeed an aspiration that is grounded in our Constitution, but that may well be achieved by means other than real equality of unions homosexual marriage, why is not the courts impose through interpretation, but to choose legifernado Parliament.
As a co-defender has chosen (or found?) David Boies, famous lawyer to represent democracy in 2000 represented Al Gore in the case against Bush before the Supreme Court, and was defeated by him.
The Republicans were well aware of the existence of this "flaw in the system" and had tried to get my hands on in 2006, with the "Federal Marriage Amendment " who would intervene on the U.S. Constitution in the same way as the "Proposition 8 "California did with that. The law, however, was rejected by the Senate, thanks to the defection of some Republican Senators (Among them the future of the White House candidate John McCain), many of whom voted against it because they do not favor gay marriage, but because hostile to the encroachment of legislative power "central" in an area reserved for the legislative autonomy of individual states.
Given this autonomy, gay marriage today is already guaranteed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire and the District of Columbia that is in Washington.
The real problem is that always wins in court, but always comes defeated at the polls. It 'been subjected to a referendum in 31 of the 50 states, including the liberal New York, and in all - diconsi: everyone! - The 31 cases was surely rejected by the voters (in the last elections similar to the Californian referendum were held in Florida and Arizona, with identical results).
must be said that civil unions are recognized in five states (including the very California, where they are called "Domestic Partnership"), which allows gay couples access to benefits otherwise reserved for spouses in terms of welfare , taxation and privacy. Moreover, in a dozen states, including New York, Florida and California itself, same-sex couples have the possibility to adopt children (the star of the lesbian couple because "Perry against Schwarzenegger" all it is raising four adopted).
The stakes are then represented by twenty-seven Member where gay marriage is banned, which are not required to recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in other states, thanks to the " Defense of Marriage Act" passed in 1996 (in full Clinton was, but with Congress firmly in the hands of the Republicans).
There was also an attempt to "clone" the company here in Italy, in April 2009 when the Court of Venice, to decide a case brought by a gay couple against the City lagoon that had refused to publish their of marriage, went back to the Constitutional Court the question of legitimacy Articles of our Civil Code that prevent the marriage between homosexuals. In the following months is queued to the Court of Appeal of Trento and Florence, and the Court of Ferrara. Not coincidence, but a campaign carried out under the banner of "Civil Claim" by the "Certain Rights" related to the Radical Party. In April this year, the Constitutional Court rejected all appeals, arguing that recognizing same-sex couples is indeed an aspiration that is grounded in our Constitution, but that may well be achieved by means other than real equality of unions homosexual marriage, why is not the courts impose through interpretation, but to choose legifernado Parliament.
If the Italian version was a flop, the original stars and stripes in the game is anything but hope, but the road is still uphill for Olson and Boies: Supreme Court vote of a single judge magigoranza could make a 5 to 4. The eyes are sull'imprevedibile Anthony Kennedy. In 2003 he was the deciding vote - el'estensore - the sentence with which the Court ruled unconstitutional the Texas law prohibiting sodomy, by "jumping" all the laws against homosexual practices hitherto existing in several Member South proximity could return to do the balance.
0 comments:
Post a Comment