Gay sports update again

Folks know my theory that legalizing gay marriage is good for winning championships. One of many small disappointments contained within the Great Disappointment which was the narrow defeat for marriage equality in California is what it will mean for California-based sports teams in the year to come. The USC Trojans will not end up playing for the national title in football, and my beloved Cal Golden Bears women’s basketball team will likely not win the NCAA crown. If the California Supreme Court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional, however, there’s still time to reverse these inevitable setbacks.

But hey, Connecticut just legalized gay marriage, and the first weddings were performed today. And guess who has the number #1 team in women’s hoops? Yup, UConn, led by coach Geno Auriemma and super soph Maya Moore. They haven’t won a title in a few years, but I suspect that they’ll collect a sixth in April. They can thank their state supreme court if they do.

6 thoughts on “Gay sports update again

  1. Wasn’t Prop 8 a constitutional amendment? I thought that was the whole theory behind it, that it couldn’t be ruled unconstitutional.

  2. I’m not as familiar with the working of state courts, so I’m not sure what the California supreme court can do at this point, but the USSC could certainly say that it’s unconstitutional under the US Constutition, no?

  3. ThAt was the idea. But an initiative could claim to be constitutional, and that wouldn’t make it so. California voters could vote to permit racial covenants in housing, for example, and claim that that was a constitutional amendment — and then have it overturned because it violated another aspect of the constitution. We’ve done it before in California.

  4. Apparently there is also a difference between a constituional “amendment” and a constitutional “revision.” Prop 8 was an amendment which only requires a simple majority, but some are arguing that since it takes away rights it should have been a revision which needs a 2/3 majority.

    I am not a lawyer obviously but I understand this is one of the legal arguments in the pending lawsuits against prop 8.

  5. Ah, that makes sense.

    B, you’re right in the sense that state constitutions can’t deny rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. But for SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8 at that level would be unlikely (I think without the ERA there’s nothing to really base an argument on, which is why there have been efforts to repeal DOMA rather than challenge it in federal court…but I could be wrong).

  6. tps12, I didn’t think it was likely the USSC would overturn it but was just trying to figure out who could actually do it, since constitutional amendments are generally checks against the judiciary (and hence I didn’t think the judiciary that’s been checked could reverse them). In the meantime, Hugo posted a link in his newest entry that erased all my confusion about taking it to the state SC. I had no idea about the revision vs. amendment disctinction, or that the California SC had actually declared LGBTs a suspect class. That certainly changes things.

Comments are closed.