Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

The Real Threat of Prop 8 and Why It Must Be Overturned

Karin Wang.jpgKarin Wang
Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Thanks to Proposition 8, justice is now threatened everywhere.

The real threat of Prop. 8 is not just against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Californians, it is against all Californians. A core purpose of the California Constitution is to ensure that the law treats all people equally, including minority groups. If upheld, Prop. 8 will set a dangerous precedent, where a simple majority vote is able to strip away the fundamental rights of a protected minority group.

As an Asian American and a civil rights lawyer, this possibility frightens me. Asian Americans have a long history in the state of California, playing a critical role in building the American West in the 1800s. In fact, immigrant laborers from China, Japan, Korean, India and the Philippines formed the backbone of the state’s railroad, agriculture and mining industries. But instead of open arms, Asian immigrants found themselves singled out for exclusion and discrimination, in addition to violence.

At the height of anti-Asian fervor in the state, California excluded Asian Americans virtually across the board, from prohibitions against owning property and testifying in court to targeted taxes that applied only to Chinese immigrants to restrictions on marriage, education, and other aspects of daily life. During that period (and even now), Asian Americans were a minority population in California and had little to no legal or political voice.

Thankfully, California’s court system eventually recognized that such exclusion and discrimination against a minority population cannot be tolerated. In large part, our Constitution’s core principle of equal protection – the equality of all people before the law – led to the elimination of race-specific prohibitions and restrictions and today, it would be unfathomable to single out Asian Americans or any other race to be treated differently than everyone else.

The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, where I work, is the nation’s largest public interest law firm devoted to the Asian American community. We spend every day fighting discrimination and seeking a more just and equitable society, for not only Asian Americans but other minority groups as well, as we believe that the fates of all communities are closely connected. As civil rights lawyers, APALC relies on the independence of the courts to prevent discrimination and to ensure that all people are treated fairly and equally by our laws, as required by our Constitution.

On November 5, 2008, as we realized that Prop. 8 might pass, we grappled with one of the greatest fears that any civil rights lawyer can face – that the rights of minority groups that we have worked so long and so hard to ensure might become undone by a simple majority vote. We realized that Prop. 8 threatens the very core of our Constitution, because it takes away a fundamental right from a protected minority group – and we were compelled to join other leading civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, Equal Justice Society, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in filing a ‘friend of the court’ brief in the case to invalidate Prop. 8.

As we stated in our brief, this case is not about same-sex marriage – it is about ensuring that all minority groups are protected equally before the law. The question before the California Supreme Court is whether a ballot measure can deprive one minority group of its fundamental rights. The answer must be no because any other answer puts all of our communities and our basic Constitutional principles at risk. In other words, if a simple majority can strip gays and lesbians of the fundamental right to marry, then there is nothing to prevent a simple majority from taking fundamental right away from other protected groups, whether its Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, women, or religious minorities.

If Prop. 8 is allowed to stand, the very principle of equal protection is threatened. And once equal protection is threatened, justice is threatened.

Injustice exists; sometimes, it even results from the decision of a majority of the voters in an election. But all people, regardless of how we vote, depend on the courts to protect us against injustice. We should never allow the fundamental principles of our Constitution to be subject to a simple majority vote – majorities can turn on any group at any point and it is a basic principle of America’s democratic system that the courts, legislators and voters provide checks and balances against each other.

The California Supreme Court must retain its independence, enforce our Constitution, and invalidate Prop. 8. Together, we can stamp out injustice everywhere.

Click here to read the brief they filed: Asian Pacific American Legal Center, et al.

The Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California (APALC) is the nation's largest legal organization serving the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) communities. Founded in 1983, APALC is a unique organization that combines traditional legal services with civil rights advocacy and leadership development.

The mission of APALC is to advocate for civil rights, provide legal services and education and build coalitions to positively influence and impact Asian Pacific Americans and to create a more equitable and harmonious society.

Posted on March 03, 2009

Comments

Can you say that this article is without a doubt BS? The voting and passing of Prop 8 was legaly voted on and the majority vote won. This is however the way voting was structured as to the majority of those who placed there ballot to pass this issue. I believe that now - the issue of marriage is now based on that of being "between a man and a woman".
So with all the information of that of the past has no standing with this issue and the voting carried out the what the majority wanted.

Posted by: OldGaDawg at March 3, 2009 10:53 AM

olddawg, oh how we forget... in 1964 ronald reagan (then governor of california) infamously said, “If an individual wants to discriminate against negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has the right to do so.”
65% of ca voters agreed and passed prop 14. there are additional propositions that have passed with a majority vote, including some that would have prevented interracial marriage, or even blacks from marrying other blacks, but thankfully our system of checks and balances allowed our courts to intervene over the tyranny of the majority. i think this article has great relevance if you're willing to listen to its greater points.

Posted by: youngnfree at March 3, 2009 08:06 PM

olddawg, oh how we forget... in 1964 ronald reagan (then governor of california) infamously said, “If an individual wants to discriminate against negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has the right to do so.”
65% of ca voters agreed and passed prop 14. there are additional propositions that have passed with a majority vote, including some that would have prevented interracial marriage, or even blacks from marrying other blacks, but thankfully our system of checks and balances allowed our courts to intervene over the tyranny of the majority. i think this article has great relevance if you're willing to listen to its greater points.

Posted by: youngnfree at March 3, 2009 08:08 PM

olddawg, oh how we forget... in 1964 ronald reagan (then governor of california) infamously said, “If an individual wants to discriminate against negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has the right to do so.”
65% of ca voters agreed and passed prop 14. there are additional propositions that have passed with a majority vote, including some that would have prevented interracial marriage, or even blacks from marrying other blacks, but thankfully our system of checks and balances allowed our courts to intervene over the tyranny of the majority. i think this article has great relevance if you're willing to listen to its greater points.

Posted by: youngnfree at March 3, 2009 08:08 PM

True, but the majority has also voted on parental notification laws in California 3 times in six years, and it's failed each time. And I bet we'll still have another version of this law to vote on in 2010. Funny how religious conservatives use the "voice of the people" argument when they win, but ignore it when they lose.

Posted by: Will at March 28, 2009 02:12 PM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker