Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.....I am hoping he was just responding to PM not realizing PM's comments were to you and thought they were to him.

I was responding to PM. I knew he responded to beavers. So? He asked a question. I gave it an answer. The first sentence is because the charge was that many believe that Christians need to ignore their beliefs and others don't. Christians are not losing the "cultural war" because a bunch of people with vastly different morals are winning at the ballot box, but because our courts and legislators have slowly and begrudgingly became more enlighten over what it means to have liberty. (At least on some subjects as many including myself will argue that this has happened while a great many other liberties have been stripped away as we weren't looking).

 

[phthalatemagic]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

 

[The Commish]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

Yes it is what I am saying. I'm saying that Christians are not being asked to leave their beliefs at the curb, but that certain beliefs, even if they are in the majority are not legitimate concerns for the government to act upon. That an individuals morality is not something that an individual can cede to the majority opinions and thus morality is not something that our government can legitimately consider all by itself. The fact that our government often does legislate morality and voters demand that they do doesn't change this principle. Nor does my inability to properly express this idea.

Ok...you're missing my point...point blank....is beavers a BFS alias?? "BFS" responded to a quote between PM and beavers with "That is not what I am saying" and now I am concerned.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok...you're missing my point...point blank....is beavers a BFS alias?? "BFS" responded to a quote between PM and beavers with "That is not what I am saying" and now I am concerned.

BFS is neither an alias, nor does it/I have any. PM made a general comment, at least general enough and I responded.

 

[beavers]

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

Let me give you an example of what I mean ... In 2004, Ohio had a state amendment on the ballot that pertained to Ohio's minimum wage. Although I thought it would be beneficial for lower income individuals to have a higher wage, I did not agree with amending the state constitution and did not vote for it. So technically, my belief was to help the less fortunate but did not agree with modifying the constitution to do so. There are other ways to help the less fortunate through job creation, charity, education etc.

 

[beavers]

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

By "force them onto others', I take it you are talking about voting on a political issue?Can we ignore the specific idea of gay marriage and speak more generally for a moment? I hear this type comment spoken towards Christians around here a lot, but I truly don't understand how anyone can say such a thing toward any group of people and not see their own bigotry toward that group. Essentially, what you're doing is telling a group of people to shut up, and that they shouldn't have a say in our democratic system simply because of their religious beliefs. I understand very well that you may not agree with their beliefs; you may even think they are entirely absurd. You can think whatever you want about someone else, but that doesn't give you the right to tell them how and when they should be voting. By doing so, you're not fixing anything, but instead have become part of the problem.

How does anyone decide to vote? Isn't everyone (yes, including you) voting on issues based on their personal beliefs, regardless of how they were derived?

That is not what I am saying.

:( PLEASE tell me this isn't true!!!!

Yes it is what I am saying. I'm saying that Christians are not being asked to leave their beliefs at the curb, but that certain beliefs, even if they are in the majority are not legitimate concerns for the government to act upon. That an individuals morality is not something that an individual can cede to the majority opinions and thus morality is not something that our government can legitimately consider all by itself. The fact that our government often does legislate morality and voters demand that they do doesn't change this principle. Nor does my inability to properly express this idea.

Ok...you're missing my point...point blank....is beavers a BFS alias?? "BFS" responded to a quote between PM and beavers with "That is not what I am saying" and now I am concerned.

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

 

[beavers]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

No. Are you?

 

[The Commish]

Ok...you're missing my point...point blank....is beavers a BFS alias?? "BFS" responded to a quote between PM and beavers with "That is not what I am saying" and now I am concerned.

BFS is neither an alias, nor does it/I have any. PM made a general comment, at least general enough and I responded.

ok....I was concerned.

 

[PsychoMan]

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

Let me give you an example of what I mean ... In 2004, Ohio had a state amendment on the ballot that pertained to Ohio's minimum wage. Although I thought it would be beneficial for lower income individuals to have a higher wage, I did not agree with amending the state constitution and did not vote for it. So technically, my belief was to help the less fortunate but did not agree with modifying the constitution to do so. There are other ways to help the less fortunate through job creation, charity, education etc.

And I think there's nothing wrong with:1) you believing you should help the less fortunate2) you valuing not amending the state constitution more than your belief that you should help the less fortunate by voting for thisI also wouldn't fault you if you valued helping the less fortunate so much, that you did vote on behalf of this amendment.

 

[The Commish]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

No. Are you?

Of course not. I think you might be.

 

[beavers]

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

Let me give you an example of what I mean ... In 2004, Ohio had a state amendment on the ballot that pertained to Ohio's minimum wage. Although I thought it would be beneficial for lower income individuals to have a higher wage, I did not agree with amending the state constitution and did not vote for it. So technically, my belief was to help the less fortunate but did not agree with modifying the constitution to do so. There are other ways to help the less fortunate through job creation, charity, education etc.

And I think there's nothing wrong with:1) you believing you should help the less fortunate2) you valuing not amending the state constitution more than your belief that you should help the less fortunate by voting for thisI also wouldn't fault you if you valued helping the less fortunate so much, that you did vote on behalf of this amendment.

So, did we come to an agreement that people can vote without voting for a belief?

 

[beavers]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

You seem to follow me in every thread. You could be a

 

[beavers]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

No. Are you?

Of course not. I think you might be.

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor. (I posted this in another thread at some point)

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us

It forces us to consider why we have rights.

By Kermit Roosevelt

from the November 14, 2008 edition

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

 

[PsychoMan]

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

Let me give you an example of what I mean ... In 2004, Ohio had a state amendment on the ballot that pertained to Ohio's minimum wage. Although I thought it would be beneficial for lower income individuals to have a higher wage, I did not agree with amending the state constitution and did not vote for it. So technically, my belief was to help the less fortunate but did not agree with modifying the constitution to do so. There are other ways to help the less fortunate through job creation, charity, education etc.

And I think there's nothing wrong with:1) you believing you should help the less fortunate2) you valuing not amending the state constitution more than your belief that you should help the less fortunate by voting for thisI also wouldn't fault you if you valued helping the less fortunate so much, that you did vote on behalf of this amendment.

So, did we come to an agreement that people can vote without voting for a belief?

Can they? Sure?Must they? No.But, I'm not sure your example shows this anyway. The fact is, you voted on one thing that you value (not amending the state constitution) over another thing that you value less (helping the less fortunate). You believe one to be more valuable, and worth voting for.The bottom line here is that I'm not concerned at all if we are able to vote without basing our vote on a belief; my point is that people can and have every right to vote based on their beliefs.

 

[beavers]

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

Let me give you an example of what I mean ... In 2004, Ohio had a state amendment on the ballot that pertained to Ohio's minimum wage. Although I thought it would be beneficial for lower income individuals to have a higher wage, I did not agree with amending the state constitution and did not vote for it. So technically, my belief was to help the less fortunate but did not agree with modifying the constitution to do so. There are other ways to help the less fortunate through job creation, charity, education etc.

And I think there's nothing wrong with:1) you believing you should help the less fortunate2) you valuing not amending the state constitution more than your belief that you should help the less fortunate by voting for thisI also wouldn't fault you if you valued helping the less fortunate so much, that you did vote on behalf of this amendment.

So, did we come to an agreement that people can vote without voting for a belief?

Can they? Sure?Must they? No.But, I'm not sure your example shows this anyway. The fact is, you voted on one thing that you value (not amending the state constitution) over another thing that you value less (helping the less fortunate). You believe one to be more valuable, and worth voting for.The bottom line here is that I'm not concerned at all if we are able to vote without basing our vote on a belief; my point is that people can and have every right to vote based on their beliefs.

The bottom line here is a simple majority vote should not determine the rights of a minority. A belief should not deny equality from a minority group.

 

[Gr00vus]

The bottom line here is a simple majority vote should not determine the rights of a minority. A belief should not deny equality from a minority group.

Depends on the belief, but in general you're right on this, and absolutely right about equality.

 

[phthalatemagic]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

No. Are you?

Of course not. I think you might be.

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor. (I posted this in another thread at some point)

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us

It forces us to consider why we have rights.

By Kermit Roosevelt

from the November 14, 2008 edition

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

I don't know what that has to do with anything

 

[beavers]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

No. Are you?

Of course not. I think you might be.

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor. (I posted this in another thread at some point)

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us

It forces us to consider why we have rights.

By Kermit Roosevelt

from the November 14, 2008 edition

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

I don't know what that has to do with anything

The fact that the majority should never determine the rights of the minority. That was your OP. Short memory?

 

[phthalatemagic]

The majority should not be determining the rights of the minority.

Ever?

It's a slippery slope. So yes, the majority should never determine rights for the minority.

You against the 13th Amendment??

No. Are you?

Of course not. I think you might be.

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor. (I posted this in another thread at some point)

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us

It forces us to consider why we have rights.

By Kermit Roosevelt

from the November 14, 2008 edition

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

I don't know what that has to do with anything

The fact that the majority should never determine the rights of the minority. That was your OP. Short memory?

If you expect me to read that article you are going to have to include a cartoon in the middle of it or something. I made it 3 lines down and decided it was garbage.So, why are you against the 13th Amendment?

 

[beavers]

If you expect me to read that article you are going to have to include a cartoon in the middle of it or something. I made it 3 lines down and decided it was garbage.So, why are you against the 13th Amendment?

Why do you think I am against the 13th? And why do you think the article is garbage?

 

[phthalatemagic]

If you expect me to read that article you are going to have to include a cartoon in the middle of it or something. I made it 3 lines down and decided it was garbage.

So, why are you against the 13th Amendment?

Why do you think I am against the 13th? Because a majority is deciding rights for a minority

And why do you think the article is garbage?

no cartoons

 

[PsychoMan]

Where are you going with this? Obviously, you have opinions and vote on things that aren't outlined clearly in the constitution.

Let me give you an example of what I mean ... In 2004, Ohio had a state amendment on the ballot that pertained to Ohio's minimum wage. Although I thought it would be beneficial for lower income individuals to have a higher wage, I did not agree with amending the state constitution and did not vote for it. So technically, my belief was to help the less fortunate but did not agree with modifying the constitution to do so. There are other ways to help the less fortunate through job creation, charity, education etc.

And I think there's nothing wrong with:1) you believing you should help the less fortunate

2) you valuing not amending the state constitution more than your belief that you should help the less fortunate by voting for this

I also wouldn't fault you if you valued helping the less fortunate so much, that you did vote on behalf of this amendment.

So, did we come to an agreement that people can vote without voting for a belief?

Can they? Sure?Must they? No.

But, I'm not sure your example shows this anyway. The fact is, you voted on one thing that you value (not amending the state constitution) over another thing that you value less (helping the less fortunate). You believe one to be more valuable, and worth voting for.

The bottom line here is that I'm not concerned at all if we are able to vote without basing our vote on a belief; my point is that people can and have every right to vote based on their beliefs.

The bottom line here is a simple majority vote should not determine the rights of a minority. A belief should not deny equality from a minority group.

Yeah, that sounds nice. Unfortunately, under the guise of that bottom line, you are making hypocritical, bigoted statements such as this:

Intermixing in this thread - the church should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds. If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Christians are welcomed to share their beliefs but should not force them onto others.

Christians should not take away rights of individuals based on their beliefs that not everyone upholds

The obvious problem with this statement is that you're saying Christians shouldn't do anything based on a belief that not everyone upholds. Good luck finding a belief that everyone upholds.You single out Christians in this statement and later state you do not want them to voice their opinion if it's based on their religious beliefs: bigotry

You clearly do not hold yourself to the same standard; you vote based on your own beliefs and values: hypocrisy

If religion was the sole reason for our political decisions, then we would be living in a theocracy, not a democracy.

Nothing sensical or productive comes of making this statement other than it sounds like you are trying to convince Christians that if they vote based on their religious beliefs, we would be in a 'theocracy'. This is obviously flawed, so I am left to assume you simply want to shut them up.Now if you want to protect the rights of minorities, that's great, but if by doing so, you attack or attempt to shut up other groups, you've now become part of the problem.

 

[beavers]

If you expect me to read that article you are going to have to include a cartoon in the middle of it or something. I made it 3 lines down and decided it was garbage.

So, why are you against the 13th Amendment?

Why do you think I am against the 13th? Because a majority is deciding rights for a minority

And why do you think the article is garbage?

no cartoons

Sorry, no offense but I just can't converse with someone who can only communicate in cartoon.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Here is an article from the Christian Science Monitor.

(I posted this in another thread at some point)

California's same-sex marriage case affects all of us

It forces us to consider why we have rights.

By Kermit Roosevelt

from the November 14, 2008 edition

Philadelphia - What now for California? In May, its Supreme Court announced a right to same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians rushed to take advantage of the opportunity; by early November, 18,000 such marriages had been performed. But on Nov. 5, they stopped. By a 52-47 percent margin, California voters approved Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Immediately, gay rights supporters filed lawsuits asking to overturn the ruling. Critics are calling Proposition 8 an illegal constitutional "revision," fundamentally altering the guarantee of equality – not a more limited "amendment."

This suit raises a serious question: When should a majority have the power to take away a constitutional right granted by a court?

It's a question that forces us to think about why we have constitutional rights in the first place, and why they are enforced by judges. But it is not simply a theoretical puzzle. All of us enjoy constitutional rights, and most of us are at some point in a minority. All of us could be affected.

American constitutional practice has generally been to expand rights over time, both by amendment and by judicial decision. Amendments to the federal Constitution, for example, gave women and minorities the right to vote. Judicial decisions have expanded the constitutional guarantee of equality to protect more and more groups. Some of these decisions remain intensely controversial, but none have been overruled by a federal amendment.

Of course, amending the federal Constitution is difficult. It requires approval by "supermajorities": two-thirds in the House and the Senate and three-quarters of state legislatures. Federal rights cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote.

Because of this requirement, judicial decisions enforcing the federal Constitution's equality guarantee have followed a relatively consistent pattern. At one point in time, a particular practice – say, the racial segregation of public schools or the exclusion of women from the practice of law – is so widely accepted that it seems beyond challenge. Judges are not likely to strike the practice down, and if they did, the backlash might well be strong enough to create a constitutional amendment.

Some time later, the practice becomes controversial. It still enjoys majority support – otherwise it would likely be undone through ordinary lawmaking – but it no longer has the allegiance of a supermajority. It is at this time that judges tend to act in order to protect the freedoms of the minority, striking down the practice as unjustified discrimination. The decision may be intensely controversial. It may even be the target of majority disapproval. But because there is no longer a supermajority, the decision is safe.

As attitudes evolve, the practice comes to seem outrageous. Almost no one, nowadays, would argue for racial segregation of schools or a ban on female lawyers. At this point, the judicial decision is no longer controversial.

If a majority could overrule a judicial decision, the process would frequently be stopped by that majority vote. Judicial interventions against discrimination would just not succeed.

Regardless of where you stand on same-sex marriage, what's troubling for US citizens in the California case is the idea that an equality guarantee could not be effectively enforced against the will of a majority. The point of such a guarantee is precisely to protect minorities from discrimination at the hands of a majority.

It would be somewhat surprising, then, if California allowed judicial decisions enforcing the state equality guarantee to be overruled by a simple majority vote. In fact, as the gay-rights supporters' suit indicates, it is not clear that it does. Under the California constitution, "amendments" can be approved by a simple majority vote.

But "revisions," which make substantial changes, require approval by a supermajority – two-thirds of both houses of the legislature – before being submitted to voters. Supporters framed the same-sex marriage ban as an amendment, when really it has the makings of a revision.

It makes sense to require supermajority support to overrule a judicial decision that grants rights to a minority. It shows that the judges were so out of step with society that they were probably wrong. But a simple majority does not show that, and the constitution would not afford meaningful protection if it could be overruled at the will of the majority.

As the opposition to same-sex marriage in California has shrunk, simple majorities should not be able to reverse decisions made in the name of equality.

This is not an argument that the California court was correct. The battle for public opinion goes on. But letting the court's decision stand against the disapproval of a simple majority is not only sensible, it protects the minority rights of future generations.

Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

I needed this last week!

 

[Gr00vus]

The obvious problem with this statement is that you're saying Christians shouldn't do anything based on a belief that not everyone upholds. Good luck finding a belief that everyone upholds.

You single out Christians in this statement and later state you do not want them to voice their opinion if it's based on their religious beliefs: bigotry

You clearly do not hold yourself to the same standard; you vote based on your own beliefs and values: hypocrisy

No he's saying Christians shouldn't try to enforce inequality in regards to rights based on a belief that not everyone upholds. There's a huge difference between that and "shouldn't do anything." Until you are able to understand that, you're not going to be able to make coherent arguments. There's nothing bigoted or hypocritical in what Beavers has said.

 

[phthalatemagic]

If you expect me to read that article you are going to have to include a cartoon in the middle of it or something. I made it 3 lines down and decided it was garbage.

So, why are you against the 13th Amendment?

Why do you think I am against the 13th? Because a majority is deciding rights for a minority

And why do you think the article is garbage?

no cartoons

Sorry, no offense but I just can't converse with someone who can only communicate in cartoon.

That's cool, just work on your consistency. If you don't want majorities determining minority rights, then stick with your statements.

 

[PsychoMan]

The obvious problem with this statement is that you're saying Christians shouldn't do anything based on a belief that not everyone upholds. Good luck finding a belief that everyone upholds.

You single out Christians in this statement and later state you do not want them to voice their opinion if it's based on their religious beliefs: bigotry

You clearly do not hold yourself to the same standard; you vote based on your own beliefs and values: hypocrisy

No he's saying Christians shouldn't try to enforce inequality in regards to rights based on a belief that not everyone upholds. There's a huge difference between that and "shouldn't do anything." Until you are able to understand that, you're not going to be able to make coherent arguments. There's nothing bigoted or hypocritical in what Beavers has said.

You're right, he didn't say "do anything". When I initially responded to his statement, I asked if he was referring to them voting on social issues (such as gay marriage). That is what I am referring to.My point was that anyone can vote based on their beliefs; even if everyone else doesn't also uphold that belief. To ask a group, in this case Christians, to hold to that standard, but not expect it from yourself is hypocritical.

 

[Gr00vus]

The obvious problem with this statement is that you're saying Christians shouldn't do anything based on a belief that not everyone upholds. Good luck finding a belief that everyone upholds.

You single out Christians in this statement and later state you do not want them to voice their opinion if it's based on their religious beliefs: bigotry

You clearly do not hold yourself to the same standard; you vote based on your own beliefs and values: hypocrisy

No he's saying Christians shouldn't try to enforce inequality in regards to rights based on a belief that not everyone upholds. There's a huge difference between that and "shouldn't do anything." Until you are able to understand that, you're not going to be able to make coherent arguments. There's nothing bigoted or hypocritical in what Beavers has said.

You're right, he didn't say "do anything". When I initially responded to his statement, I asked if he was referring to them voting on social issues (such as gay marriage). That is what I am referring to.My point was that anyone can vote based on their beliefs; even if everyone else doesn't also uphold that belief. To ask a group, in this case Christians, to hold to that standard, but not expect it from yourself is hypocritical.

Your point is taken, and I agree with it. But I don't think that is the point Beavers is debating. The idea is that equality for minorities is not something that can be protected through the popular vote. Disallowing gay people the right to marry, which all other groups of humans in this country enjoy, is not something that should ever be allowed to be enforced through a popular vote.

 

[PsychoMan]

You're right, he didn't say "do anything". When I initially responded to his statement, I asked if he was referring to them voting on social issues (such as gay marriage). That is what I am referring to.My point was that anyone can vote based on their beliefs; even if everyone else doesn't also uphold that belief. To ask a group, in this case Christians, to hold to that standard, but not expect it from yourself is hypocritical.

Your point is taken, and I agree with it. But I don't think that is the point Beavers is debating. The idea is that equality for minorities is not something that can be protected through the popular vote. Disallowing gay people the right to marry, which all other groups of humans in this country enjoy, is not something that should ever be allowed to be enforced through a popular vote.

Yeah I pretty much agree with you here. Interesting how you can make a good point about protecting a group of people without using it as an excuse to make a direct attack on another group that you dislike.

 

[The Commish]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

You seem to follow me in every thread. You could be a

Genuinely speaking here...this is the first conversation I remember ever having with you. I think we may have also had conflicting views in a sports thread at one time too, but that's about all I know about you. Clearly, you know more about my posting habits than I know about yours and yet, somehow I am the one with the obsession.

 

[beavers]

You're right, he didn't say "do anything". When I initially responded to his statement, I asked if he was referring to them voting on social issues (such as gay marriage). That is what I am referring to.My point was that anyone can vote based on their beliefs; even if everyone else doesn't also uphold that belief. To ask a group, in this case Christians, to hold to that standard, but not expect it from yourself is hypocritical.

Your point is taken, and I agree with it. But I don't think that is the point Beavers is debating. The idea is that equality for minorities is not something that can be protected through the popular vote. Disallowing gay people the right to marry, which all other groups of humans in this country enjoy, is not something that should ever be allowed to be enforced through a popular vote.

Yeah I pretty much agree with you here. Interesting how you can make a good point about protecting a group of people without using it as an excuse to make a direct attack on another group that you dislike.

Look, my statement about theocracy vs. democracy was made because I feel the only argument that Christians give (in regards to gay marriage) is what the Bible says. To me, that argument makes no sense. Again, they are voting on their beliefs but like I said, beliefs should not determine the rights of the minorities.

 

[beavers]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

You seem to follow me in every thread. You could be a

Genuinely speaking here...this is the first conversation I remember ever having with you. I think we may have also had conflicting views in a sports thread at one time too, but that's about all I know about you. Clearly, you know more about my posting habits than I know about yours and yet, somehow I am the one with the obsession.

Forget the Mormons?

 

[The Commish]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

You seem to follow me in every thread. You could be a

Genuinely speaking here...this is the first conversation I remember ever having with you. I think we may have also had conflicting views in a sports thread at one time too, but that's about all I know about you. Clearly, you know more about my posting habits than I know about yours and yet, somehow I am the one with the obsession.

Forget the Mormons?

Isn't that this thread?? If not, same topic at least? That was the conversation I was referring to. I thought it was in this thread.

 

[beavers]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

You seem to follow me in every thread. You could be a

Genuinely speaking here...this is the first conversation I remember ever having with you. I think we may have also had conflicting views in a sports thread at one time too, but that's about all I know about you. Clearly, you know more about my posting habits than I know about yours and yet, somehow I am the one with the obsession.

Forget the Mormons?

Isn't that this thread?? If not, same topic at least? That was the conversation I was referring to. I thought it was in this thread.

No it's a different thread.

 

[The Commish]

Seriously, give it a break. Stop your obsession with beavers.

You seem to follow me in every thread. You could be a

Genuinely speaking here...this is the first conversation I remember ever having with you. I think we may have also had conflicting views in a sports thread at one time too, but that's about all I know about you. Clearly, you know more about my posting habits than I know about yours and yet, somehow I am the one with the obsession.

Forget the Mormons?

Isn't that this thread?? If not, same topic at least? That was the conversation I was referring to. I thought it was in this thread.

No it's a different thread.

See...I don't pay enough attention to be a stalker. I was thinking this was the thread we were discussing the mormons and prop 8...how many freakin' prop 8 threads are there here anyway?? This would be my second different conversation with you then...on the same topic....my mistake.

 

[beavers]

Jerry Brown's Prop. 8 Reversal

December 20, 2008 11:10 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: California Attorney General Jerry Brown called on the state's Supreme Court on Friday to strike down a recently approved ballot measue which eliminated the state's court recognized right to same-sex marriage.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," said Brown.

The attorney general's legal brief constitutes a turnaround for Brown. Back in November, the mercurial former governor said that he was planning to defend the voter-approved proposition even though he personally voted against it. The attorney general of California is duty-bound to defend state law as long as there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

But after weeks of consulting with lawyers in his office, Brown, who is considering a run for governor in 2010, changed his mind.

He now believes that all the residents of California enjoy an inalienable right to liberty and privacy that includes a right to marry that cannot be stripped away by majority vote.

While voters are allowed to amend some parts of the state constitution by majority vote, Brown's brief argues that the state constitution's inalienable rights cannot be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment.

Proposition 8 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court could begin as early as March.

 

[beavers]

Prop 8 proponents seek to nullify same-sex marriages

(CNN) -- Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.

The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.

"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.

California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.

"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.

Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.

"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."

Opponents filed suit quickly after the November 4 election in which Proposition 8 passed 52 percent to 48 percent, effectively reversing a California Supreme Court decision that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The vote also prompted a series of protests, some aimed at supporters of the proposition.

The proposition, which added an amendment to the state constitution, defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Opponents argue that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively, but proponents say the amendment is clear on that issue.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity," one of the briefs read. "There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

" ... Its plain language encompasses both pre-existing and later-created same-sex (and polygamous) marriages, whether performed in California or elsewhere. With crystal clarity, it declares that they are not valid or recognized in California."

Opponents are also seeking to have the amendment nullified, arguing that it alters the state's constitution -- meaning the state Supreme Court's May ruling -- and therefore, according to state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention. Proponents of the amendment disagree.

"Petitioners' challenge depends on characterizing Proposition 8 as a radical departure from the fundamental principles of the California Constitution," their briefs said. " ... But that portrayal is wildly wrong. Proposition 8 is limited in nature and effect. It does nothing more than restore the definition of marriage to what it was and always had been under California law before June 16, 2008 -- and to what the people had repeatedly willed that it be throughout California's history."

California voters passed a ballot initiative in 2000 that changed the state's Family Code to formally define marriage in the state between a man and a woman. After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in 2004, which were promptly annulled, Newsom and others sought to have the ballot initiative struck down.

The California Supreme Court did so in May, and same-sex marriages were performed legally in California a month later.

The court's ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

But opponents had already been at work on Proposition 8, seeking to enshrine the marriage definition in the constitution, and the initiative was approved for the November 4 vote.

Proposition 8 supporters also announced the addition of Kenneth Starr to their legal team. Starr will serve as lead counsel and argue their case to the Supreme Court.

Starr, the dean of Pepperdine Law School, investigated the suicide of Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater affair. The $70 million investigation turned up evidence of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky and led to Clinton's impeachment by the House of Representatives. He was acquitted by the Senate.

 

[Popcorn Eating Guy]

Hey, Jesus never said anything about wife beating or incest. I guess those are OK too.

Nor did he say anything about driving a car or using the innernets...I say get rid of it all.

No, no, no, if Jesus didn't say anything about something that means that He approved of it. So cars and the innerwebs are just fine.

The New Testament does speak against homosexuality....Romans 1: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.I guess I understand the frustration about what is percieved as bigotry against homosexuals, but saying Christianity (and Jesus) aren't against it is just silly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

California Prop. 8 Upheld, But Held Not To Affect Existing Same-Sex Marriages

An excerpt from the opinion:

[N]o authority supports the Attorney General’s claim that a constitutional amendment adopted through the constitutionally prescribed procedure is invalid simply because the amendment affects a prior judicial interpretation of a right that the Constitution denominates “inalienable.” The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary. Although the amending provisions of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints. This court would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power....

In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.

 

[beavers]

California Prop. 8 Upheld, But Held Not To Affect Existing Same-Sex Marriages

An excerpt from the opinion:

[N]o authority supports the Attorney General’s claim that a constitutional amendment adopted through the constitutionally prescribed procedure is invalid simply because the amendment affects a prior judicial interpretation of a right that the Constitution denominates “inalienable.” The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary. Although the amending provisions of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints. This court would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power....

In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.

It will be interesting to see if there's a right that is given to married couples (straight and the 18k gay lesbian couples) that is not available under the domestic partnership. This ruling essentially creates 2 classes of one legally recognized group in CA.

 

[The Z Machine]

Unfortunately, it seems that this was the correct decision based on the Constitutional facts of the matter at hand.

That said, good for the court in upholding the existing same-sex marriages in California. There was no wording in the amendment to remove this status, and if the people want ALL same-sex marriages gone, they'll have to pass another amendment.

Furthermore, this amendment will be overturned/changed by another amendment in the next 10-20 years.

 

[beavers]

Only one dissent:

Justice Moreno, in his dissent, comes to the opposite conclusion. Enforcing equal protection requires protection for all aspects of the law, including nomenclature. He even quotes the Court's previous conclusions in Re Marriage Cases:"Denying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly be described as a "narrow" or "limited" exception to the requirement of equal protection; the passionate public debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, even in a state that offers largely equivalent substantive rights through the alternative of domestic partnership, belies such a description. "[T]he constitutional right to marry . . . has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution . . . ." (Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th at p. 781.)Justice Moreno concludes that upholding Proposition 8 - a ballot measure that concretely denies equal protection and creates a legal distinction between two groups for no other reason than a fear and hatred of a minority by the majority - will "emasculat[e] the equal protection clause of the California Constitution as a provision of independent force and effect. "If one agrees that a legal distinction between two similarly situated groups is nothing to scoff at, it is quite possible that Proposition 8 was a revision.Justice Moreno explains that revisions to the Constitution may be structural, but are not limited to structural changes and may also include amendments that, "substantially alter the substance and integrity of the state Constitution as a document of independent force and effect."Justice Moreno's point - and it is an important one is that if you refuse to dismiss the pain and suffering caused by Proposition 8 and address the legal discrimination it enshrines in the Constitution as being important and dangerous, you cannot consider Proposition 8 a simple amendment.The majority never addresses this point. It calls the ballot measure a minor change that carves out a discreet exception to the equal protection clause and moves on to a detailed description of case law that ceases to be relevant when the court using that case law refuses to engage with the human outrage and controversy surrounding the subject of their decision.Failing to uphold equal protection rights for same-sex couples is one thing, but doing so without engaging in the real debate over the importance of marriage, rather than civil unions, is a disservice to California's people and to the body of jurisprudence that forms the basis of many legal rights and responsibilities enforced in the State.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Furthermore, this amendment will be overturned/changed by another amendment in the next 10-20 2-4 years.

That's my estimate. California can't really be that far behind Vermont and Maine on this issue. And the California constitution, it turns out, is really easy to amend.

 

[dparker713]

California Prop. 8 Upheld, But Held Not To Affect Existing Same-Sex Marriages

An excerpt from the opinion:

[N]o authority supports the Attorney General’s claim that a constitutional amendment adopted through the constitutionally prescribed procedure is invalid simply because the amendment affects a prior judicial interpretation of a right that the Constitution denominates “inalienable.” The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary. Although the amending provisions of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints. This court would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power....

In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.

When reading that excerpt, it screams to me the court thinking about a recall should they have overturned Prop 8.

 

[The Z Machine]

Furthermore, this amendment will be overturned/changed by another amendment in the next 10-20 2-4 years.

That's my estimate. California can't really be that far behind Vermont and Maine on this issue. And the California constitution, it turns out, is really easy to amend.

No matter how hard Lambda Legal organizes on this they aren't going to have the votes straight away. They would be better to bide their time while other states legalize, then go after the repeal again once the norm has settled in.

 

[The Commish]

California Prop. 8 Upheld, But Held Not To Affect Existing Same-Sex Marriages

An excerpt from the opinion:

[N]o authority supports the Attorney General’s claim that a constitutional amendment adopted through the constitutionally prescribed procedure is invalid simply because the amendment affects a prior judicial interpretation of a right that the Constitution denominates “inalienable.” The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary. Although the amending provisions of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints. This court would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power....

In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.

It will be interesting to see if there's a right that is given to married couples (straight and the 18k gay lesbian couples) that is not available under the domestic partnership. This ruling essentially creates 2 classes of one legally recognized group in CA.

DING DING DING....this is exactly the window left open by having "gay marriage" and "marriage" at the same time. I'd be absolutely shocked if they were treated identically. But I am a pessimist by nature. We'll see.

 

[beavers]

California Prop. 8 Upheld, But Held Not To Affect Existing Same-Sex Marriages

An excerpt from the opinion:

[N]o authority supports the Attorney General’s claim that a constitutional amendment adopted through the constitutionally prescribed procedure is invalid simply because the amendment affects a prior judicial interpretation of a right that the Constitution denominates “inalienable.” The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary. Although the amending provisions of a constitution can expressly place some subjects or portions of the constitution off-limits to the amending process — as already noted, some state constitutions contain just such explicit limits — the California Constitution contains no such restraints. This court would radically depart from the well-established limits of the judicial function were it to engraft such a restriction onto the Constitution in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision limiting the amendment power....

In a sense, petitioners’ and the Attorney General’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution, or as limited in the present-day constitutions of some of our sister states — this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.

It will be interesting to see if there's a right that is given to married couples (straight and the 18k gay lesbian couples) that is not available under the domestic partnership. This ruling essentially creates 2 classes of one legally recognized group in CA.

DING DING DING....this is exactly the window left open by having "gay marriage" and "marriage" at the same time. I'd be absolutely shocked if they were treated identically. But I am a pessimist by nature. We'll see.

Which in turn, brings on lawsuits like this:

Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson Supporting Same Sex Marriage

May 27, 2009 9:40 AM

President George W. Bush's first Solicitor General, Ted Olson, filed a lawsuit in US district court on May 22 to protest Prop 8, the California law banning same sex marriage.

Joining with his former opponent in Bush v Gore, David Boies, Olson is suing on behalf of two same-sex couples in California, The Advocate reports: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier of Berkeley, who have been together for nine years and are the parents of four children, and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo of Burbank, who have been together for eight years.

Their argument: the State of California giving same sex couples "the separate-but-unequal institution of domestic partnership," instead of full marriage, violates equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, creating a class of "second-class citizens"

"We believe this is the kind of matter where Americans must come together and recognize the rights of all citizens," Olson told the AP.

"This is a federal question," he said, expressing the desire that the case end up before the US Supreme Court. This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized."

“For a long time I’ve personally felt that we are doing a grave injustice for people throughout this country by denying equality to gay and lesbian individuals,” Olson told The Advocate. “The individuals that we represent and will be representing in this case feel they’re being denied their rights. And they’re entitled to have a court vindicate those rights.”

Olson said that recent US Supreme Court rulings “make it clear that individuals are entitled to be treated equally under the Constitution. I’m reasonably confident that this is the right time for these [injustices] to be vindicated.”

It should be noted, for those not fully aware of Mr. Olson's resume, that he is a full-throated conservative, a Federalist hero who in 1999 welcomed conferees to "the heart" of the proverbial "vast right-wing conspiracy" he is perhaps the most highly respected conservative lawyer in the land. As Assistant Attorney General, he defended President Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal, served on the board of directors of The American Spectator, and helped Paul Jones's lawyers prepare for their case.

At Americablog, gay activist John Aravosis writes in response: "Ted Freaking Olson is now better on gay marriage than our president - than most of our party...At what point will President Obama realize that the year is 2009 and not 1993? America has become accustomed, inured, and possibly even bored with all the gay rights victories of the past five years. They just don't care any more. And I mean that in a good way. Gay marriage is bursting across the land and the American people have shrugged. They just don't care. So why does our president? Why do he and his advisers seem to be treating gay people and their issues as, at best, an embarrassing inconvenience?"

 

[whitem0nkey]

Great Gay Protest Sign

 

[beavers]

Great Gay Protest Sign

Jesus had two dads?