The Scripps Voice

By Megan Petersen ’15
Copy Editor

You’d have to have been comatose to have missed it. The Human Rights Campaign’s red equal signs all over Facebook. The headlines quoting every sarcastic quip that rolled off of Antonin Scalia’s tongue. The photographs of the clever (and not so clever) picketers’ signs in Washington, D.C. The myriad interviews and pictures of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi absolutely everywhere…

Even with “GAYpril,” a pride month at many college campuses, just around the corner, those who love and support GLBTQQI rights were hardly celebratory—at least not yet. Any celebrations, if they come at all, will have to wait until early this summer. That’s when the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decisions on what are expected to be two landmark cases regarding marriage rights for non-heterosexual couples: Hollingsworth v. Perry, otherwise known as the Proposition 8 case, and United States v. Windsor, which deals with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

How the court will rule on these issues is essentially anyone’s guess. Generally speaking, the court could overturn or uphold a lower court’s ruling, remand and send the case back down to a lower court for more proceedings, or the court could rule that the plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue—that is, that they haven’t been harmed in such a way that a favorable ruling would bring sufficient recourse—and will refuse to go further.

Even more important than the official decision will be the written opinions of the court. These documents detail the court’s logic behind its decision, and often determine whether a decision will be limited to its specific context or will have far-reaching effects. For example, if the Court upholds the California Supreme Court’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, whichever justice writes the opinion of the court could argue that the ruling applies to any state with a ban on gay marriage, only to states that have already approved gay marriage within their borders, or only to California.

However, many analysts are more concerned about standing, particularly in the Prop 8 case, than about any other rulings the court might dole out. If the court rules that those suing can’t achieve legal resource under the law, the court would dismiss the case without any further ruling.

What would a non-ruling look like on Prop 8? Potentially not much different than it does now, which, arguably, would look like a loss for many same sex marriage proponents.

However, there are those who don’t see “marriage equality” as progress. Given the inherently patriarchal and oppressive history of marriage, particularly in the Judeo-Christian cultural norms that shape mainstream American society, is confining same sex relations to such a mold necessarily a good thing?

Some critics of same sex marriage argue that state-sanctioned marriage itself is discriminatory, since so many rights are given to couples that are not afforded single people or those in other kinds of relationships. Arguably, it would be more progressive to abolish state-sanctioned marriage altogether.

These, of course, are not the questions that the Supreme Court is grappling with, and any thoughts on rulings are merely speculative. It’s doubtful that the excitement will die down, though, so stay tuned.

Happy pride month, all!

By Elizabeth Lee ‘16
Staff Writer

Photo Courtesy of Hannah Beth Jackson

About forty-five years ago, Hannah Beth Jackson walked through Scripps College’s iconic Honnold Gate to begin her new life and journey as a Scripps woman.  She was a first-year college student trying to figure out what to do with her life, studying for midterms, walking past the Denison Library, perhaps preparing for upcoming Halloween festivities—and still to fully realize her potential to affect the world beyond Scripps’ boundaries.

Today she is Hannah Beth Jackson, former State Assembly member of California’s 35th District, co-founder of two non-profit organizations, policymaker in residence at University of California Santa Barbara, adjunct professor at Antioch University, and now California State Senate candidate of District 19.  Jackson is an example of the ambitious and spirited Scripps women who have the innate power to shape our society’s future by tackling endless domestic issues on our endless road of possibilities and interests.

After earning a joint degree in government and sociology, Jackson went on to earn her law degree from Boston University.  She became the district attorney for Santa Barbara before going on to start a family law practice where she could take a stand against domestic violence and sexual assault.  During her six years as a State Assembly member (1998-2004) she served as Chair of the Natural Resources, Coastal Protection, Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials, Budget, Judiciary, and Higher Education Committees, as well as of the bipartisan Legislative Women’s caucus.  She has written many impressive bills that have been signed into law.  Jackson’s two non-profit organizations are Renew California and Speak Out California, which work to promote open and respectful communication between California citizens as well as provide voters with the information and insights of progressive activists.

Now, as a State Senate candidate, Jackson stated that the three main priorities she wishes to address are: jobs and the economy, public education, and environmental protection, three issues she sees as interrelated.  By encouraging investment in new, green, and local businesses she hopes to not only promote environmental protection and alternative energy research but also job growth and money circulation within California.  In order to encourage these local businesses, she also considers strengthening public education, thereby also promoting an educated workforce, another priority and a process that should heavily engage those who are most involved–the teachers.

Hannah Beth Jackson’s career and future plans seem to reflect the familiar optimism and motivation of her fellow Scripps women.  Whether or not Scripps’s up-and-coming women decide to support or agree with Jackson’s political ideas, they can nonetheless recognize her as an indicator of their own potential.

By Nikki Broderick ’14
Staff Writer

On Nov. 2, 2010, the state of California will vote for the legalization of marijuana for personal use for adults over 21. Marijuana use will not be allowed in public spaces and users who provide the drug to minors will have strict consequences, including three to five years in jail for those who provide marijuana to those younger than 14 years old.

Medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996 by Proposition 215, and is one of 13 states that have passed such a proposition. However, this ballot would make personal marijuana use legal for those not suffering from chronic pain or suffering. Although marijuana possession and use would still be illegal under federal law, it would be legal under the state constitution of California.

I say let it pass.

As a state, we’re broke. California’s debt totals nearly 88 billion dollars, and it isn’t going away any time soon. If marijuana were legalized, local governments could regulate and tax the sale of it to generate revenue. This legalization would also save billions of dollars by reducing the number of nonviolent prisoners in California’s state prisons. Last year, 61,000 marijuana users in California were arrested while 60,000 violent crimes were left unsolved. By redirecting resources away from recreational marijuana use that poses no violent threat, police officers would be able to focus on hard crime.

It does seem odd that to finance some of the most important gaps in our budget—education, for example—we have to legalize a drug. Then again, cigarettes and alcohol are legal to adults, both of which have more damaging effects to health than marijuana does. Marijuana also does not cause its users to become violent. Put a hundred people who are high in a room and what would happen? Nothing. They would probably sit around in a relaxed stupor. Put a hundred drunken people in a room? I think that’s the definition of a bar fight.

Let me be clear: I don’t smoke pot and have no desire to. But why should the government be allowed to stop someone from smoking pot when they are allowed to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes legally? People are going to smoke pot, whether or not it is legal. It makes the most sense to regulate, tax and control this substance instead of watching a failed prohibition system flourish while our state spirals deeper and deeper into debt.

For more information on Proposition 19 or anything else on the ballot, visit California’s Voter Information site here.