Pro will of the people? Since when does a bare majority constitute that? By this logic it was the will of the people to elect Al Gore back in 2000, considering he did win the popular vote. We see how that worked out.
Printable View
Pro will of the people? Since when does a bare majority constitute that? By this logic it was the will of the people to elect Al Gore back in 2000, considering he did win the popular vote. We see how that worked out.
4 activist judges overturned the will of the people forcing prop 8 to come about and despite your ignorance of how things work in America, California ballot initiatives are passed by a simple majority, as intended, and Presidential elections are decided by the electoral college, as intended, so you're comparing apples to oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
how is marriage a special right?
Marriage, between a man and a woman, is not a special right, changing the definition just to make gay people happy would be. A gay man, for example, already has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man does. When you start redefining marriage you dilute it. Gays can have all of the societal benefits of marriage through civil unions without giving special rights...Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
I was merely trying to illustrate a point, so thanks for keeping this civil not going straight for the jugular. Now, back to your will of the people, simple majority nonsense. Considering the legal challenge thats in the works, it remains to be seen a simple majority vote is legally able to change California's constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamapatient
Quote:
Prop 8 was not your typical "amendment" that merely tinkers with the California Constitution. It was a drastic revision that deprives a "suspect class" (gays and lesbians) of a fundamental right under equal protection. And a simple majority vote of the people is not enough to take that right away â?? especially when the purpose of equal protection is to shield minorities. While other courts have upheld marriage amendments in other states, they have different Constitutions â?? and court rulings have changed considerably in a short period of time. And unlike many states, California has explicitly found sexual orientation to be a "suspect class." If the Court overrules Prop 8, it will be a powerful affirmation for justice â?? capping what has been a powerful year of "change."
BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » Why Prop 8 Can â?? and Must â?? Be OverruledQuote:
Even if voters pass a Constitutional Amendment, the courts can still decide if it was merely an "amendment" â?? or a substantive "revision." And if it was a "revision," voter approval by a simple majority is not enough â?? it also requires an okay by the state legislature (which probably wouldnâ??t happen), or a constitutional convention. Why the distinction? Because mere "amendments" tinker around the edges; "revisions" are far more fundamental changes.
And the Courts have thrown out such changes to the Constitution as "revisions" under the right circumstances [...]
Likewise, Prop 8 is a drastic "revision" (if not moreso) because it violates equal protection for a minority group.
Last May, the California Supreme Court found that depriving same-sex couples the right to marry violated equal protection â?? and that LGBT people are a "suspect class." A "suspect class" is a group that has suffered discrimination and needs protection. The central purpose behind equal protection is to protect unpopular minorities from a political majority who could take away their rights. You canâ??t simply change the Constitution by majority vote to take away the right of gay people to marry â?? because that right comes from the equal protection clause. As Herrera wrote in his brief, "without a judiciary that has the final word on equal protection, there simply is no such thing as equal protection."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11006520Quote:
All six challenges argue that Proposition 8 was an improper method of amending the California constitution and flouted the Supreme Court's ruling last year striking down the state's prior ban on gay marriage. Among other things, the lawsuits seek an immediate stay of the renewed gay marriage ban, a move Brown opposes because it would create further legal uncertainty for couples deciding to wed as the legal battle winds through the Supreme Court.
Prop 8 wasn't the first time the California Constitution has been amended by ballot initiative. While most propositions only change penal/civil code that's not always the case. Check Prop 13, another California Constitutional amendment passed by the will of the people. Prop 13 was more popular than prop 8 but as I already stated, the California Constitution allows ballot initiatives to pass with a simple majority. In order to invalidate that they'd have to change the California Constitution to say that ballot initiatives (that amend the California Constitution) need to pass by more. Just because gays are going to sue doesn't mean they'll win.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
"BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News"
What do you expect from SF "media", besides liberal propaganda? SF is a joke to most of California...
No, actually it doesn't remain to be seen. There is an established legal process, it's called voter initiative referendum, in CA voters are allowed to propose constitutional changes, as well as legislation. There is nothing that remains to be seen. While I personally disagree with the whole process, it is what it is, and the "anti-gay marriage" groups did everything within their means to advance their agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, and they are not trying to suppress any other political groups actions, meaning no one is preventing the gay marriage activists from putting their own Constitutional amendment forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamblerGambler
Actually, the "pro-gay marriage" crowd, could use the same process to work towards their political goal.
Anyone can file a lawsuit, filing a lawsuit does not constitute jack shit, except that someone filed a lawsuit.:thumbsup:
They certainly could (and I expect they will) get signatures to put *another* proposition on the ballot re-amending the constitution but it will fail because even more people will be against the attempt to subvert (yet again) the will of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
California Secretary of State - Elections & Voter Information - Initiative Guide
i wonder if americans were similarly upset about extending 'special' rights to slaves by redefining them as human beings
Another apples to oranges comparison. Imagine that...Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit