Quote
While I understand where you are coming from I do not agree.
(and if I missunderstood the point of who defines forgive me)
The vote as I usnderstand it was a state constitutional vote. All CA state courts should have to abide by that vote. The only place it can go now it the US SC. And the only way it will get turned over is if the US SC convolutes yet another article of the constitution.
Just as they did in Roe v Wade......
Oh, and I dont see this a lessening or removing rights from anybody. I see this as stopping a minority group getting special consideration under a law. Not protecting rights they have.
It is going to CA SC, and as I understand it, one of the arguments that the No on 8 lawyers are making is that removing a right from a group of people is a revision of the state constitution which requires a 2/3 majority rather than the simple majority for an amendment
A dolor netus non dui aliquet, sagittis felis sodales, dolor sociis mauris, vel eu libero cras. Interdum at. Eget habitasse elementum est.
I'm not sure what the context of your remark is, nothing I said suggests that government invented marriage, though it now seems willing to define it (i.e. between one man and one woman only).
There would seem to be a solid case for the court appeals against Prop 8, under the equal protection clauses of state and federal constitutions. What sets Prop 8 apart from other constitutional amendments is that it TAKES AWAY a right under law from a select group of citizens. The only people I know of who can have their rights taken away are convicted criminals.
The entire reason we have Bills of Rights and equal protection clauses is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against the mob rule of the majority. Law abiding and tax paying gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection of the law and that right cannot be voted away by popular whim. Besides which, if we can strip gays of their legal rights, who else is next ? The Muslims aren't especially popular these days, why not go after their....property !!
Besides, these appeals will be heard by the same State Supreme Court that ruled in favor of same sex marriage in the first place, so I'm optimistic of the court's ruling.
But hey, we DID vote to let the chickens run free, on the floor, in their own chickenshit, so they can share more dieases with each other. The people of Kali obviously care more about a bunch of fuckin' chickens than people who just want to commit their lives to each other. Yeah, we can all be real proud of that....
While I understand where you are coming from I do not agree.
(and if I missunderstood the point of who defines forgive me)
The vote as I usnderstand it was a state constitutional vote. All CA state courts should have to abide by that vote. The only place it can go now it the US SC. And the only way it will get turned over is if the US SC convolutes yet another article of the constitution.
Just as they did in Roe v Wade......
Oh, and I dont see this a lessening or removing rights from anybody. I see this as stopping a minority group getting special consideration under a law. Not protecting rights they have.
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln