Socrates & King

I’ve read the US Constitution, but must admit I haven’t read the California constitution. A quick Google search yielded the following. I excerpted some of the Articles that deal with “equal rights”.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 4.  Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State.  The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

Well, here’s religion. No discrimination on that basis. But what if a person’s “free exercise” of religion means that she does (or does not) support certain acts. For example, what if your religious views lead you to not hire a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness? Or a Mormon employer who does not want to hire someone who is gay? Does it go against the peace and safety of the State? I suppose if the discrimination leads to riots, it would. This was one of the criticisms King faced. “Slow down. You’re rocking the boat. You’ll make the people in power angry. If you don’t move faster, there will be riots in the streets.” And on and on.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 6.  Slavery is prohibited.  Involuntary servitude is prohibited
except to punish crime.

This is a nice addition. The next bit is crucial.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

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;

As I understand it, the central issue being argued before the Federal Appeal’s court starting today (Jan 11, 2009), is the very point of equal protection. One class of people cannot be treated differently. That would seem to be the common sense view. However, the legal interpretation of this is a bit different. I’m not a legal scholar. Things a more complicated than that.

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

This ought to be a hard bit to argue against with respect to same-sex marriage. If marriage is a privilege and a class of persons tells another group that they can’t have the same privilege. We discussed the knee-jerk reaction that everyone is “equal”. Is it discriminating against people who are under 4ft 8in when it comes to getting on a ride at Disneyland? Is it discriminatory to have separate privileges for 9th graders that are different from 2nd graders?

And, drumroll…

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

I think this is the bit that Prop. 8 reaffirmed. Or it might be that it is what Prop. 8 mandated. Bottom line: Article 1, Sec. 7.5 is the law in California.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

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.

Interesting that there’s no “religion” here. “Creed” might be a substitute for “religion”. There’s also nothing here about “sexual orientation”.