Proposition 8 in California

depechemode

depechemode

Enjoy the Silence
It is just a small set back. I am hoping, like every other civil rights movement in this country, they will eventually overcome and my kids will read about this stuff and think the same way I did reading about the woman's suffrage and the civil rights of the 60s... that it was clearly a violation of their rights. Like in the past we as a country will eventually do the right thing.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Now THIS is how it's done;

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"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," the ruling said.
Click to expand...

This is excellence in law. This is an example of what is WRONG with Roe v. Wade; Wanna change things? Fine. Go get enough people to agree to amendment.

This is intelligent, wise and reasoned jurisprudence of the highest order. I stand and applaud this 6-1 decision and hope that this kind of rational thought might well spread throughout the land and inform us all that we are not bound to constantly accept bad law.

:yahoo:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
depechemode said:
It is just a small set back. I am hoping, like every other civil rights movement in this country, they will eventually overcome and my kids will read about this stuff and think the same way I did reading about the woman's suffrage and the civil rights of the 60s... that it was clearly a violation of their rights. Like in the past we as a country will eventually do the right thing.
Click to expand...

I think that is absurd to compare women not being allowed to vote to gay marriage. Californians can work to change their constitution whenever they like. It is wrong to expect 7 people to speak for the whole state on a legislative issue. The ONLY thing stopping gay marriage in Cali right now is the will of the people.

Totally different than voting rights.
 
depechemode

depechemode

Enjoy the Silence
Larry Gude said:
I think that is absurd to compare women not being allowed to vote to gay marriage. Californians can work to change their constitution whenever they like. It is wrong to expect 7 people to speak for the whole state on a legislative issue. The ONLY thing stopping gay marriage in Cali right now is the will of the people.

Totally different than voting rights.
Click to expand...

See I disagree. Denying rights is still denying rights.
While I do not disagree per se with your argument that 7 people should make the decision for the whole state, I disagree with is that it something that is discriminatory in nature was even placed on a ballot initiative.

I just do not like the whole majority rights/will of the people argument. What if it was the will of the people to deny atheists the right to marry, is that OK? As long as it was the majority (and a small one at that, with this case)? Where does it end?
 
Last edited:
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
depechemode said:
See I disagree. Denying rights is still denying rights.
While I do not disagree per se with your argument that 7 people should make the decision for the whole state. What I disagree with is that it something that is discriminatory in nature was even placed on a ballot initiative.

I just do not like the whole majority rights/will of the people argument. What if it was the will of the people to deny atheists the right to marry, is that OK? As long as it was the majority (and a small one at that, with this case)? Where does it end?
Click to expand...

Right to vote = right to marriage? I don't think so, scooter.

As for the ballot initiative, that was simply in response to some folks declaring gay marriage was OK outside of the legislative process in the first place.

The will of the people is the will of the people with certain inalienable rights spelled out; free speech, guns, etc, etc. and that is pretty consistent state to state. Regardless of your views of marriage, it is recognized as a state issue and I do NOT accept the argument in favor of a US constitutional amendment barring it. It is, to me, a state issue.

Bad laws, by judgments, pressed through, like Roe v. Wade, leave all rights vulnerable because when we accept bad law we accept, in effect, no law. Better for Cali to go through the painstaking process of passing, or not, a state legislature approved and governor signed law recognizing gay marriage and leave the courts to simply do their oversight duty of the other tow; not supersede them.

:buddies:
 
B

Beaver-Cleaver

Guest
The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
Click to expand...

This, combined with Sotomayor's view that the Constitution can be trumped by the states is scary. What if California decides they should be allowed to deny 2nd Amendment rights to African-Americans? Or they could vote to ban a certain religion. Sounds like the minority residents should leave California before the majority can vote away another privilege or right.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Beaver-Cleaver said:
Constitution of the United State of America :: 1776-2009 :dead:

The majority can oppress the minority again.
Click to expand...

This ruling doesn't suggest that the U.S. Constitution has died, or even that it has been compromised. The U.S. Constitution hasn't had anything to do with this case thusfar. The U.S. Constitution, in the form of a federal court ruling, hasn't had a say in this particular case yet.

This was the California Supreme Court saying that they can't decide what the California Constitution can say, because they (the California Supreme Court) are subordinate to the California Constitution. In general, they are right about that. The issue before them had nothing to do with whether or not this provision conforms with the U.S. Constitution.

However, the U.S. Constitution is not sub-ordinate to the California Constitution, and I suspect that this issue will proceed to a federal court in order that the conformity of this provision of the California Constitution with the U.S. Constitution can be tested. Who knows what the ultimate ruling on that will be, but whatever it is, it hasn't been rendered yet.

If the people of the United States legally amended the U.S. Constitution to say that only people over 60 get to vote - the U.S. Supreme Court would have no authority to strike that down. Even if they thought it was unfair, their only right would be to interpret what it means, not say that it is unconstitutional - because it would be in the Constitution. SCOTUS is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution. It's the same thing in this situation with the California Supreme Court (although there were some technical arguments about the way it got in the California Constitution - that was the only issue before the Court in this case).

The essential question answered by this ruling really has nothing to do with same-sex marriage rights.
 
Last edited:
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Beaver-Cleaver said:
This, combined with Sotomayor's view that the Constitution can be trumped by the states is scary. What if California decides they should be allowed to deny 2nd Amendment rights to African-Americans? Or they could vote to ban a certain religion. Sounds like the minority residents should leave California before the majority can vote away another privilege or right.
Click to expand...

Beav, the US constitution is silent on marriage. It is not silent on the the bill of rights. Big difference.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Larry Gude said:
Beav, the US constitution is silent on marriage. It is not silent on the the bill of rights. Big difference.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of interpretation. The U.S. Constitution is 'silent' on a great many things, because it doesn't specifically mention every possible right (it just can't specify everything, it must rely on general statements that can be interpreted in relation to the specific situation at issue). It is 'silent' on your right to write what you want, or wear what color clothes you want - but the 'freedom of speech', and possibly other provisions, is interpreted to guarantee you those rights in most circumstances (and reasonably interpreted thusly, in my opinion).

The 14th Amendment is the wild card. It uses a pretty broad brush. And, its general provisions can easily be interpreted to 'speak' to many specific embodiments. Whether or not one agrees with those interpretations is a separate issue, but there simply has to be some interpretation.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Tilted said:
That's a matter of interpretation. The U.S. Constitution is 'silent' on a great many things, because it doesn't specifically mention every possible right (it just can't specify everything, it must rely on general statements that can be interpreted in relation to the specific situation at issue). It is 'silent' on your right to write what you want, or wear what color clothes you want - but the 'freedom of speech', and possibly other provisions, is interpreted to guarantee you those rights in most circumstances (and reasonably interpreted thusly, in my opinion).

The 14th Amendment is the wild card. It uses a pretty broad brush. And, its general provisions can easily be interpreted to 'speak' to many specific embodiments. Whether or not one agrees with those interpretations is a separate issue. But, I wouldn't say that the Constitution is necessarily 'silent' on a specific right, just because it isn't specifically mentioned. If that were the case, we would all be pretty unhappy with some of the supposed 'rights' that weren't safe. There simply has to be SOME interpretation.
Click to expand...

I responded to the inclusion of second amendment rights, which the US constitution is decidedly NOT silent on, in comparison to a right to gay marriage which, regardless of ones view, is decidedly NOT an enumerated right in the constitution.

I am not insensitive to a 14th amendment right to gay marriage though I do see it as the proper purvey of the states, along with regular marriage. It just ain't as defined as amendment #2.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
depechemode said:
Ok I agree with you in terms of issues like abortion. I am pro choice but I would not disagree with it being a state issue. There is really no discrimination there saying it is up to each state to decide.
But saying gay marriage, IMO, should be a state issue is like saying segregation should be a state issue. Issues of possible discrimination should not be allowed to be voted on in the first place. While I do understand why the CA SC voted as they did today-- overriding it would be like saying we let you put it on the ballot but we do not like the way you voted so we are overturning it-- I do not think there should have ever been a ballot issue to begin with.
Click to expand...

To me, abortion can NEVER pass a common sense argument given the right to life. It requires, in my view, an amendment.

Denying gay marriage is, to me, nothing like segregation which violates the right of free assembly. There is no prohibition of free association in denying gay marriage.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Larry Gude said:
I responded to the inclusion of second amendment rights, which the US constitution is decidedly NOT silent on, in comparison to a right to gay marriage which, regardless of ones view, is decidedly NOT an enumerated right in the constitution.

I am not insensitive to a 14th amendment right to gay marriage though I do see it as the proper purvey of the states, along with regular marriage. It just ain't as defined as amendment #2.
Click to expand...

Well, I won't disagree with that notion - far too much ground has been ceded to the Federal government, which was only intended to be the regulator of the most systemically important interactions between the states and their respective citizens.

In regard to this situation though, the larger point is that the entire U.S. Constitution has thus far, and necessarily, been silent - there just hasn't been a specific question as to whether or not it conforms with the U.S. Constitution - yet. Or has there? I frankly haven't followed whether or not this has been challenged in a federal court yet. I guess, I should say that with regard to the California Supreme Court's decision, the U.S. Constitution was silent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top