So this happened, as it was more or less expected to. Should be all over the news right now, and the article has the basic details. I think this decision is good news, but it's pretty clear now that this is not the case that will lead to nationwide legalization of gay marriage, even if it goes to the Supreme Court. The court's decision only goes so far as to say that it's an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a law to take away, without a rational basis, the right to marry from a specific group that already has it, as gay Californians did before Proposition 8.

To put it another way, this ruling doesn't say:
- That banning gay marriage is always unconstitutional
- That taking away the right to same-sex marriage is always unconstitutional, unless it's done without a rational basis

So what happened today is a ruling that will directly affect only California, because of the specific facts surrounding California's gay marriage ban. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because Prop. 8 was terrible, but you should probably treat with skepticism any claims that this is a landmark ruling.

I'm skeptical of your claim that this is a landmark ruling, but otherwise, thanks for the update and interpretation!

Could you clarify, as a courtesy?

Something good happened in America for human rights. It is a good day.

I hate you, saberopus.

goy

Makes me wonder if the same argument could be used to block a constitutional amendment revoking corporate personhood.

How do you figure that?

A (large?) part of the problem is that Proposition 8 rescinded existing rights for a particular class of person, which is considered to be unconstitutional (cf. 14th amendment.) Case law holds that corporations are people and protected by the 14th amendment, so a constitutional amendment which robbed them of rights would need to pass the same test as Proposition 8.

I'd say no. It works in the gay marriage case because the California Constitution is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. If the analogous federal amendment passed, it would be part of the U.S. Constitution and there would be no higher law to appeal to. If we passed a constitutional amendment revoking corporate personhood, the references to "persons" in the Fourteenth Amendment (and other amendments) would have to be interpreted in light of that more recent amendment.

In addition, there's no doubt that a rational basis exists for restricting the legal rights of corporations, particularly with respect to political contributions. Citizens United was a result of the court applying a much tougher standard, First Amendment strict scrutiny, to campaign finance law. There's no reason the courts would apply Fourteenth Amendment strict scrutiny to a limitation on corporations' rights, since corporations are pretty much the opposite of the "discrete and insular minorities" most protected by the Equal Protection Clause.

According to the 9th Circuit, this is the entire problem, or as much of the problem as they need to address anyway. That's a lot narrower than the lower court's ruling, which held that any law prohibiting same-sex marriage violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause (because Loving v. Virginia held that the right of marriage is a part of due process). The 9th Circuit wanted to avoid the broader questions, probably to protect their ruling from being overturned by the Supreme Court.

See, laws and politics make my head explode.

If a corporation is classified as a person according to the current interpretation of the law, and you created a constitutional amendment which restricts the rights of that person, what would then prevent similar amendments that persecute other classes of people? E.g. an amendment declaring that black people are not people, for which you could also find a (debatable) rational basis. It seems to me that a system which permits the unilateral declaration and revocation of personhood would be wide open for tyranny of the majority.

Jon: That's why a constitutional amendment is the hardest single piece of legislation to pass, one that must be agreed on by two thirds of the house and the senate, and then approved by three quarters of the states.

-With a constitutional amendment, you can pretty much do anything. Sometimes really good things, like guarantee every person the right to vote. Sometimes really bad things, like prohibit the sale and use of alcohol.

holy **** a bill that says queers can't get hitched got shot down in the gayest state since the union disbanded?

naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Well, what you've described is the U.S. Constitution prior to 1865, which pretty much explicitly contemplated the treatment of blacks as property. In theory, nothing prevents the kind of amendment you're describing -- an amendment to the federal Constitution doesn't even have to pass the rational basis test. Of course, Jarl's right that it's exceedingly difficult to pass a constitutional amendment, not just because of the mechanical process, but because there's more or less a consensus today that amendments are only to be used for certain things like changes to the structure of government and protection of important rights. An amendment on any other subject will have trouble gaining any traction.

The thing is, whenever you allow people to vote on things, you're striking a balance between tyranny of the majority and total unresponsiveness. We could have made the amendment process even more difficult, but that would have prevented a lot of positive changes and limited our ability to adapt the Constitution to the times.



I know you don't care, but this is totally not even a description of what happened.

Hmm... Would it seems like there may be a difference between the corporate personhood conundrum and recinding(sp?) prop 8 in that prop 8 sought to deny a right already granted to a person(s) if you revoked corporate personhood you would not be violating any rights granted to a PERSON because said corporation would no longer BE a person therefore any rights granted to persons would no longer apply to them.

...does that make any sense??

Maybe you should make more descriptive thread titles.

Does anyone else find it interesting how 90% of Alan's posts proclaim his lack of understanding and his apathy regarding the topic?

It's kind of his M.O.

Well, then. What would you like to talk about, Alan?

How's your mom been?

(No really, don't let me stop you all)

I agree with the Eater of Fluffies

She's been good. She inquires about you frequently, Alan.

Yeah, pretty much. If the Constitution (after amendment) says corporations are not legal persons, they're not legal persons.

Now, what I'm not sure about is whether states or the federal government could revoke corporate personhood by ordinary legislation. Nothing in the Constitution says corporations have to be treated as legal persons for liability, tax, or transactional purposes, which are the most useful aspects of corporate personhood. The Fourteenth Amendment, though, was probably always intended to include corporations as persons, so a law that discriminates between natural persons and corporations would at least be suspect. But on the other hand, what the Fourteenth Amendment's framers had in mind was probably preventing discrimination among corporations rather than preventing discrimination between them and natural persons.

I don't know, I'm just spitballing on this.

Also, gay marriage is legal here in Washington, yaaaaay!

-I'm not gonna go get hitched, I've got bachelorhood on my plate right now.