NO on Prop 8 (California)

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

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.

Oh really? which article would it convolute if the US SC overturned it?

this one, perhaps?

Quote

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's section 1 of the 14th amendment, BTW. You know, of the US constitution. The text of prop 8 made it very clear that its purpose was to eliminate the right of gays to marry. Seems pretty clear cut to me, and i highly doubt that overturning prop 8 would be a "convolution" of the US Constitution, particularly in regards to the 14th. Oh, and for those of you claiming that marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege...well, the 14th covers that, too

Honestly, whether the US SC decides to be connstructionist or literalist, would be very challenged to find grounds to allow prop 8 to stand. It's really really tough to take a law that eliminates a right and hold it up to the scrutiny of the 14th, i'd say.

I wonder what the vote would have been if the text of the proposition read: "Eliminates the right of inter-racial couples to marry"...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

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

Thanks for the info and update

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[n23x 0]

Quote

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.

Please elaborate.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

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.

Oh really? which article would it convolute if the US SC overturned it?

this one, perhaps?

Quote

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's section 1 of the 14th amendment, BTW. You know, of the US constitution. The text of prop 8 made it very clear that its purpose was to eliminate the right of gays to marry. Seems pretty clear cut to me, and i highly doubt that overturning prop 8 would be a "convolution" of the US Constitution, particularly in regards to the 14th. Oh, and for those of you claiming that marriage isn't a right, it's a privilege...well, the 14th covers that, too

Honestly, whether the US SC decides to be connstructionist or literalist, would be very challenged to find grounds to allow prop 8 to stand. It's really really tough to take a law that eliminates a right and hold it up to the scrutiny of the 14th, i'd say.

I wonder what the vote would have been if the text of the proposition read: "Eliminates the right of inter-racial couples to marry"...

Looking past some of whay you implied I mean, thanks for the reply.

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

I have found in the past that I have caught a fair degree of shit for posting things like, "The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a Republic." And for posting about the problems of a democracy.

I think that the Prop 8 vote is a rather glaring example of one of the KEY problems that is inherent in a democracy - you've got a majority putting a minority protection up to a vote.

The question becomes: "Can a minority be adequately protected in a democracy?" How fair can a vote go when there are 10 wolves to 9 sheep?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I have found in the past that I have caught a fair degree of shit for posting things like, "The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a Republic." And for posting about the problems of a democracy.

I think that the Prop 8 vote is a rather glaring example of one of the KEY problems that is inherent in a democracy - you've got a majority putting a minority protection up to a vote.

The question becomes: "Can a minority be adequately protected in a democracy?" How fair can a vote go when there are 10 wolves to 9 sheep?

100% agree

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[skybytch 259]

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Neither does a civil union between a man and woman.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Neither does a civil union between a man and woman.

Now that you mention it, there have been some civil unions for a man and woman before has there not?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tbrown 26]

While I understand where you are coming from I do not agree.

That's perfectly fine, that's why we have this forum.
__________________________________________________(and if I missunderstood the point of who defines forgive me)

No problemo, I just couldn't understand what it was you were saying.
__________________________________________________

The vote as I understand 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.
__________________________________________________

Ordinarily, a referendum to amend a state constitution would be a done deal. And plenty of amendment referendums are proposed, even passed, in reaction to an unpopular court ruling.

But there is a case to be made that THIS amendment flies in the face of the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. There's a good argument to be made that you cannot pass an amendment that contradicts one of the most basic doctrines of that constitution.

NOTHING can or should be beyond the review of the courts, at least we'd all better hope not. The courts regularly rule on state and federal constitutions and have since the earliest years of the republic. Our entire system of case law rests on the courts INTERPRETING laws and the constitution. And plenty of amendments by intitiative have been struck down for no more reason than having been written so badly that they were vague and unenforceable. Which is not the case here, but this amendment is not, and should not be, immune to review by the courts.

In any event, this is a state question and I would also argue that the federal courts have no jurisdiction in the matter, and might very well decline to even consider the case.
__________________________________________________

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.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

While I understand where you are coming from I do not agree.

That's perfectly fine, that's why we have this forum.
__________________________________________________(and if I missunderstood the point of who defines forgive me)

No problemo, I just couldn't understand what it was you were saying.
__________________________________________________

The vote as I understand 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.
__________________________________________________

Ordinarily, a referendum to amend a state constitution would be a done deal. And plenty of amendment referendums are proposed, even passed, in reaction to an unpopular court ruling.

But there is a case to be made that THIS amendment flies in the face of the equal protection clause of the state's constitution. There's a good argument to be made that you cannot pass an amendment that contradicts one of the most basic doctrines of that constitution.

NOTHING can or should be beyond the review of the courts, at least we'd all better hope not. The courts regularly rule on state and federal constitutions and have since the earliest years of the republic. Our entire system of case law rests on the courts INTERPRETING laws and the constitution. And plenty of amendments by intitiative have been struck down for no more reason than having been written so badly that they were vague and unenforceable. Which is not the case here, but this amendment is not, and should not be, immune to review by the courts.

In any event, this is a state question and I would also argue that the federal courts have no jurisdiction in the matter, and might very well decline to even consider the case.
__________________________________________________

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.

Well, you may have summarized the Pro-8 argument there. I don't agree, but I expect that will be at the core of arguments defending Prop 8.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Why not?

[SkyjunkySean 0]

the only way I can respond to this is....I am a moderate republican....I voted no on 8. The only reason I voted no was not because Iagree or disagree with whether or not gay folks should have the right to marry or not I voted that way because I am tired of the government telling grown "mature minded" adults what they can or cannot do...not that I am promoting anarchy for sure but for petes sake. these people are adults.
now, this is the SECOND time the "people of california have spoken. I didn't vote for Obama either, yet I am not still bitching because he was elected, he is our prez n deserves his shot and our support....the people have spoken
just my two cents

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Why not?

Please refer to earlier posts.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Why not?

Please refer to earlier posts.........

I don't see anything in this thread by you that explains why you don't think a union between a gay couple should be called a marriage.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Why not?

Please refer to earlier posts.........

I don't see anything in this thread by you that explains why you don't think a union between a gay couple should be called a marriage.

I don't see anything by anyone that explains why it SHOULD be called a marriage.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Abraham Lincoln

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Why not?

Please refer to earlier posts.........

I don't see anything in this thread by you that explains why you don't think a union between a gay couple should be called a marriage.

I don't see anything by anyone that explains why it SHOULD be called a marriage.

A marriage is the union of two individuals. A gay couple is two individuals.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

While I have no problem with gays being given the same legal rights as a man and women couple, it still does not need to be called a marriage IMO anyway.

Why not?

Please refer to earlier posts.........

I don't see anything in this thread by you that explains why you don't think a union between a gay couple should be called a marriage.

I don't see anything by anyone that explains why it SHOULD be called a marriage.

A marriage is the union of two individuals. A gay couple is two individuals.

You've just redefined the word to suit your own purposes. No one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

> No one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition.

No one 400 years ago would have used the definition of "voter" that we have today, either. But that doesn't mean that we should go back to the old one.

[Conundrum 1]

That may very well be so.

What I can't seem to get answered with any sense is WHY people want to have 'marriage' mean only between a man and a woman, and not just between two people. What effect does it have on you? Does it just not go along with your religious beliefs? You think homosexuality is gross? What is it?

[labrys 0]

Quote

No one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition.

Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay".

Words change meaning, huh?

Owned by Remi #?

[Remster 24]

Quote

Quote

No one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition.

Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay".

Words change meaning, huh?

Oh... quit trying to force us to be gay... you and your extreme gay agenda

Remster

[labrys 0]

Quote

Oh... quit trying to force us to be gay... you and your extreme gay agenda

Silly French k-niget. I have a bannana here with your name written all over it.

Go away or I will taunt you a second time!

Owned by Remi #?

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

No one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition.

Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay".

Words change meaning, huh?

Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[labrys 0]

John, seriously

That reeks of the stench given off by the idea that when you approve of something, it's evolution and when you disapprove, it's hijacking.

Owned by Remi #?

[Conundrum 1]

Quote

What I can't seem to get answered with any sense is WHY people want to have 'marriage' mean only between a man and a woman, and not just between two people. What effect does it have on you? Does it just not go along with your religious beliefs? You think homosexuality is gross? What is it?