Also it's not a right, it's a privilege.

Actually, it's halfway between both and neither.

Crimson Jester wrote:

What about people who are educated and intellegnet and yet still disagree?

I put more 'weight' into what they have to say and how they vote then the lazy folk. I see too many people that expect to get everything from the gubment/process and not put any effort into it... it isn't hard to read a ballot measure and make an informed choice.

Momentarily ignoring Court Fool

I must admit we do have a large group of thoughtless drones, my issue is that unless you go to each and every person out there who voted you have a hard way to back up the claim that they are all such. Even a majority of them are. You could use the popularity of pro wrestling to perhaps back your claim. and with that I coudl find no fault =) but because peopel disagree with you or your veiws does not in and of itself make them dumb uneducated or even wrong. They just don't agree.

I was taught that the state courts are separate from the Federal courts. I think the alarm about "judicial legislating" on the Federal level (from the posts that seem to reference the U.S. Constitution) is unwarranted. I'd worry more about Federal intervention in the state constitution as happened in Florida in 2000 than any undue influence of the California constitution or CA supreme court's actions on the other 49 states or even on the actions of the Federal circuit courts or U.S. Supreme Court. The Fed court has far more power to intervene in the states, while any particular state, including CA, has limited power to interfere with the Feds, judicially. :)

I was taught that the state courts are separate from the Federal courts. I think the alarm about "judicial legislating" on the Federal level (from the posts that seem to reference the U.S. Constitution) is unwarranted. I'd worry more about Federal intervention in the state constitution as happened in Florida in 2000 than any undue influence of the California constitution or CA supreme court's actions on the other 49 states or even on the actions of the Federal circuit courts or U.S. Supreme Court. The Fed court has far more power to intervene in the states, while any particular state, including CA, has limited power to interfere with the Feds, judicially. :)

Hi, Zeugma! Sorry to threadjack, but how's the SD campaign coming along?

It's going well. No PCs have died yet. :) I think we are somewhere in the second volume, because we are on the island looking for star metal, but I think we'll be leaving soon. I'm not sure because I am a PC and don't want to "spoil" any thing by going on the SD messageboard.

I'm not sure because I am a PC and don't want to "spoil" any thing by going on the SD messageboard.

Understood. Thanks! I wish sometimes I wasn't in this current "I want to DM" mod. Otherwise, I would have joined the games.

If people voted that the State Constitution required everyone to be Christian (something the moral Majority could actually probably get 50% on) would that be legal since NOW, it's in the constitution?

How is it that the state constitution only required 50% to be amended rather than 2/3?

It's a bigoted law that should not be legal, whether or not it's been put into the State constitution...

If any other minority group was substituted with "man and woman" it would be more obvious...

Remember the days when interracial marriages weren't just frowned upon but were ILLEGAL? How about when Women weren't allowed to vote? This is/was a HUGE step backwards.

And for the record, I'm not gay & I'm married to a woman...

If people voted that the State Constitution required everyone to be Christian (something the moral Majority could actually probably get 50% on) would that be legal since it's in the constitution!

How is it that the state constitution only required 50% to be amended rather than 2/3?

It's a bigoted law that should not be legal, whether or not it's been put in the State constitution...

If any other minority group was substituted with "man and woman" it would be more obvious...

Remember the days when interracial marriages weren't just frowned upon but were ILLEGAL? How about when Women weren't allowed to vote? This is/was a HUGE step backwards.

And for the record, I'm not gay & I'm married to a woman...

Well actually . . .

The federal Constitution only specifies:
1. Each state shall have a Republican form of government
2. No one who can vote in state elections for the most numerous branch of the state legislature can be barred from voting in federal elections
2. No one can be barred from voting in federal elections on the basis of race, sex, age if they are 18 or older, failure to pay a poll tax, or having been formerly enslaved or indentured

Beyond that, yes, a state could require a 2/3 majority to amend their constitution, or 100% agreement, or bar it completely by vote or legislative process and require a constitutional convention, or anything else.
There are, technically, subjective issues as to whether they could establish a religious test for voting, but apparently some state legislators in New Hampshire do not believe the 1st Amendment applies to the states (I will have to dig out the link later, I am late getting to class), and so they can do that, and silence the press and restrict freedom of assembly. (Live Free of Rights or Die!)
Nothing however specifically limits the ability of a state to impose a property ownership requirement, or related requirement, to vote for their most numerous legislative branch, and thus bar them from voting in federal elections.
And nothing at all prevents a state government from eliminating "voting" for President, and leaving it to their Legislature or Governor to decide who to appoint as electors. (The 17th Amendment changed how Senators were chosen.)

So . . .

It's simpler this way - There's 'right' and there's 'legal'. And a whole lot of profit to be had managing/creating the tug of war btwn them.

I was taught that the state courts are separate from the Federal courts. I think the alarm about "judicial legislating" on the Federal level (from the posts that seem to reference the U.S. Constitution) is unwarranted. I'd worry more about Federal intervention in the state constitution as happened in Florida in 2000 than any undue influence of the California constitution or CA supreme court's actions on the other 49 states or even on the actions of the Federal circuit courts or U.S. Supreme Court. The Fed court has far more power to intervene in the states, while any particular state, including CA, has limited power to interfere with the Feds, judicially. :)

To answer you allegation, and the unspoken implication, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the legislature of the state determines the time and manner that an election will be certified. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the primacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had the power to intervene in the Florida case, and in light of what was going on, they also had an obligation to enforce the Constitution. The idea that the courts could influnce each other has more to do with precident and temperament than it does with the state court actually influncing the federal court. However, as I pointed out, the California constitution also establishes that the duty of the court is to interpret the law in light of the constitution rather than decide on the wrongness or rightness of the constitution itself.

I think if people want to talk intelligibly about the oral arguments being made for and against Proposition 8, it would be a good idea to understand exactly what is being argued and why.

Right now, the primary question that the California Supreme Court is trying to decide is whether or not the passage of Proposition 8 is considered an amendment to the California State Constitution, or a revision. If it is an amendment, then, under Article 18, Section 3 of the State Constitution, "the electors may amend the Constitution by initiative." If, on the other hand, it is a revision, then Article 18, Section 1 clearly states that only "the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution." [My emphasis]

Now this is where things get a little murky. Traditionally, the California Supreme Court has defined a 'revision' by the following criteria: 1) Does it represent a quantitative change to the language of the existing document, and/or 2) Does it represent a qualitative change to the current governmental structure of the existing document.

Now as one of the Justices pointed out during the oral arguments, there is no argument to make that Proposition 8 represents a quantitative revision, since it's only fourteen words long. The question is, does a change to a right previously recognized by the state Constitution represent a qualitative revision.

With all of this in mind, these are some of the questions that the California Supreme Court is asking. Note: This is just a sampling of the questions that the justices are asking.

1) Does Proposition 8 take anything away from same sex couples other than the nomenclature of the word, 'marriage?' If not, does it represent a violation of a fundamental right?

2) Do the people of California have the right to propose amendments to the state Constitution that violate fundamental and/or inalienable human rights? Example: Can the people put forward an amendment to ban the right to freedom of expression?

3) If Proposition 8 is not a revision, but is, in fact, an amendment, does the California Supreme Court have the power to overturn the proposition on the grounds that it is unconstitutional?

4) How does the argument againt Proposition 8 differ from the People v. Frierson case - where the California Supreme Court defined a proposition overturning an earlier supreme court decision defining the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, as an amendment, not a revision?

5) If Proposition 8 is upheld, should all marriages of same sex couples prior to its passage be considered invalid by the state of California?

And for those who are asking whether or not the California Supreme Court has the right to interpret whether the passage of laws are constitutional, I would like to ask, as one of the justices did during the oral arguments for Proposition 8 (and I paraphrase), "If people cannot turn to the courts to answer these questions, who do they turn to?"

Well put Dove Arrow. Are you a student of Law? ;)

Well put Dove Arrow. Are you a student of Law? ;)

No, but I work at a university, and the building I work in is next to the school of Law. :-P

Honestly, I was far more impressed by the questions the justices were giving yesterday than most of the arguments I've heard put forward here.

One point brought up by one of the justices was the history of bartenders in the state, when for a long while, historically by tradition and law, women could not be bartenders, and then later when they were allowed to do everything a bartender could do except be called a bartender.

It was also brought up as a hypothetical, what if women were not allowed to be judges, but were allowed to have some other position with all the same rights and powers, except for being called judge or justice?

And as one of the justices was asking Starr, what if for some reason the age of marriage were changed to twenty one? Are all the eighteen, nineteen and twenty year olds who were previously legally married now unmarried? What if the second-cousin rule were pushed out farther, due to some new genetic test or screening? Would all those marriages be undone?

And is an "Interracial Union" as good as "Marriage"?

From what I saw, the justices certainly aren't going to apply it retroactively. And if they do decide that 52% is a significant enough margin to make such a sweeping legal change, then the silver lining is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the whole religious nutwad coalition will have to choke on their "Will of the People!" argument as soon as the pendulum swings 52% the other way.

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:

I have no problem with this, may I remind you that in South Africa that Apartheid was part of their constitution and it was later ammended by the courts. In some cases it's justified.

Jeremy, so if the courts decided that the 'common defense' clause of the US constitution required you to spend the rest of your days in a 10X10 room, guarding a pie, because it was 'a core principal' but due process, crual and unusual punishment, and other freedoms aren't, you'd have no problem with it?

It's an extreme example, but what I, and I assume Dave, fear.

1) Well we can't let you organize a petition to address the government, because it interferes with the method of determining court justices

2) We're banning guns in the name of common defense, so there will be no domestic threats

3) To regulate Commerce, we're parking a Border Patron division in your living room, please keep them fed.

4) You might be an enemy of the state, so we're reading your e-mail.

Etc.

This is what happens when the courts grant/seize the ability to evaluate parts of the constitution being valid and others aren't.

And in a way I fear the same thing a return of a majority of people dictating the rights of a minority of people. I hope you can see that s well.

Honestly, I was far more impressed by the questions the justices were giving yesterday than most of the arguments I've heard put forward here.

I think my favorite question was posed to the defense of Proposition 8. I don't remember the exact words, but it went something like, "If the people were to, hypothetically, vote on a proposition that amends the California State Constitution limiting the right to freedom of speech, do they have the right to do so?"

The defense's answer (again, I paraphrase): "Well, the Federal Supreme Court would never uphold such an amendment, so it would be dead on arrival. However, to answer your question: Yes, the people have the right to put such a proposition on the ballot." O_O

Now admittedly, I'm not a lawyer (or a judge), but my feeling is that the law's primary function is to uphold the rights of individuals, including their right to freedom of speech. If a proposition attempts to alter that function, then I would consider that a revision, because it fundamentally changes the governmental structure of the existing document.

Based on this, I would absolutely consider Proposition 8 a revision, since it overturns the fundamental right of same sex couples to marry as previously enumerated in the state's Constitution and upheld by the California Supreme Court.

Jeremy, so if the courts decided that the 'common defense' clause of the US constitution required you to spend the rest of your days in a 10X10 room, guarding a pie, because it was 'a core principal' but due process, crual and unusual punishment, and other freedoms aren't, you'd have no problem with it?

Except there is no 'common defense' clause in the U.S. Constitution.

It's an extreme example, but what I, and I assume Dave, fear.

1) Well we can't let you organize a petition to address the government, because it interferes with the method of determining court justices

Nope. The right to peaceably petition for redress of grievances is in the 1st Amendment.

2) We're banning guns in the name of common defense, so there will be no domestic threats

2nd Amendmenet.

3) To regulate Commerce, we're parking a Border Patron division in your living room, please keep them fed.

3rd Amendment prohibits this in peacetime, which would be the case if using the commerce clause.

4) You might be an enemy of the state, so we're reading your e-mail.

4th Amendment, requires a showing in a court of law before a warrant can be issued.

Etc.

This is what happens when the courts grant/seize the ability to evaluate parts of the constitution being valid and others aren't.

No, those are all cases where courts evaluate laws for their compliance with the Constitution in general.

I'm due for bed in ten minutes, which is probably why this isn't making any sense to me. Can you explain it from another angle?

Under the 1st Amendment, the government may make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What all that means is, if a particular church, for whatever reason, decides that, in fact, it will sanction gay marriages, if the government has ruled that marriage may only exist between a man and a woman, the same sort of conflict that attended Mormon polygamy, as well as Native American sun dance and use of peyote, is created.
That would be a "Bad Thing (TM)".

If instead the government got out of marriage completely, simply ceding the term to whatever religions, and reserving to itself the licensing of partnerships of any and all sorts, not only is such a conflict completely bypassed, but significant other issues are resolved as well.
Want to ban polygamy?
Your church can marry you to any fifty women it feels like, but the government will only recognize the legal status of one partnership at a time, so you had best not expect any benefits or legal relief.
Churches want to outlaw same-sex marriages?
Good for them. If some other church feels otherwise they will just have to deal with it, as the government has no more ability to legislate their ability to perform such rites, or your church's refusal to perform such rites.

Sometimes the best way to secure the rights of all is to indulge the privilege of some.

Regardless of how you feel about Prop. 8, everyone should be frightened by the fact that the California State Supreme Court thinks that it has the authority to uphold or strike down a Constitutional amendment. This is what they announced the moment that they decided to take this case. According to both the U.S. and California state Constitutions the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret law under the guidance of the Constitution. Like it or not, and I don't, Prop. 8 passed and is now part of the State Constitution. The minute we set a precident of allowing a court to strike down a Constitutional ammendment under something as nebulous as the "document's core principle" is the minute we threaten the freedom of everyone in this country.

This is why I'm worried Sam.

You can't point to ammendments to say we have those to protect us when the courts are saying they get to uphold or strike down an ammendment.

This is why I'm worried Sam.

You can't point to ammendments to say we have those to protect us when the courts are saying they get to uphold or strike down an ammendment.

I believe DoveArrow covered it nicely.

You know there is a way to stop this California thinking for itself crud. Ammend the US Constitution and put the following at the top:

"Any Act of Government, Law, or Constitution that does not have the direct and regular approval of every citizen shall be deemed a Seditious Act."

Then shoot anyone who violates it without trial.

You know there is a way to stop this California thinking for itself crud. Ammend the US Constitution and put the following at the top:

"Any Act of Government, Law, or Constitution that does not have the direct and regular approval of every citizen shall be deemed a Seditious Act."

Then shoot anyone who violates it without trial.

Of course since the Constitution guarantees a right to a trial, such a shooting would qualify as a seditious act.

That is why only rational people should write Constitutions.

Of course since the Constitution guarantees a right to a trial, such a shooting would qualify as a seditious act.

That is why only rational people should write Constitutions.

Just being Pragmatic.

Lots of Stuff

First Sam, read the preamble of the Constitution. In fact, I'll post it here for everyone to read. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." There certainly is a common defense clause in the Constitution as the Founders established common defense as one of the primary reasone for the Constitution. Also, you are right, the Constitution does currently forbid all the situations that Matthew presented through the various ammendments. However, he was presenting a hypothetical situation, admittedly a bit extreme, of what might happen if we establish a legal precident of allowing the Court to over turn ammendments based on their interpretation of the original meaning of the document.

Now admittedly, I'm not a lawyer (or a judge), but my feeling is that the law's primary function is to uphold the rights of individuals, including their right to freedom of speech. If a proposition attempts to alter that function, then I would consider that a revision, because it fundamentally changes the governmental structure of the existing document.

Based on this, I would absolutely consider Proposition 8 a revision, since it overturns the fundamental right of same sex couples to marry as previously enumerated in the state's Constitution and upheld by the California Supreme Court.

The entire purpose of he ammendment process is alter the function of government and "fundamentally change the governmental structure of the existing document." if that was not the case there would be no need for an ammendment. However, this doesn't seem to be being taught anymore. Several ammendment to the U.S. Constitution overturn rights that were previously enumerated in the document and upheld by the Supreme Court, for example the 13th Ammendment, which outlaws slavery. The 19th ammendment, which gave women the right to vote, was another example of an ammendment that fundementally changed the Constitution. No one would argue that these revisions to the Constitution need to be overturned; the only difference between them and Prop. 8 is that the latter is unpopular with a powerful and vocal minority of the population.

If you look, there is no Constitutional right to marry. The state of California places many restrictions on who can marry, including banning polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and establishing a minimum age for marriage. The moment that we establish a "Constitutional right" for people to be married, then it must be extended to everyone. DA, you asked if people would support this ammendment if it were attempting to squash free speech. That is not a good analogy because freedom of speech is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, and even then there are laws, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, that place restrictions on free speech. A better question would be, would people who are opposed to Prop. 8 be so supportive of a law allowing brother and sister to marry, to allow polygamous marriges, or allowing a 60 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl? If the answer is no, then the Constitutional right to marry argument loses all justification.

Why is it that when someone disagrees on an issue, for whatever reason, the group that disagrees becomes

religious nutwads

automatically. What if an atheist supports prop 8? What does that make him/her? Do you feel that there is no other reason to disagree with same sex marriage then religion? if so why? Do people now seem to feel any religious leanings mean you are in fact a nutwad or is that just reserved for the majority of Americans who do in fact have religious leanings? Or is it just reserved for Christians, or other groups who may disagree with you?

Why is it that when someone disagrees on an issue, for whatever reason, the group that disagrees becomes

whomever wrote:

religious nutwads

automatically. What if an atheist supports prop 8? What does that make him/her? Do you feel that there is no other reason to disagree with same sex marriage then religion? if so why? Do people now seem to feel any religious leanings mean you are in fact a nutwad or is that just reserved for the majority of Americans who do in fact have religious leanings? Or is it just reserved for Christians, or other groups who may disagree with you?

It's because in America Christians are always fair targets. How that came to be I don't have a clue and for the life of me I can't figure out why it's tolerated on these boards.

I saw a local politician lambast his opposition for being Catholic in a political race. He was actually very racist but didn't want to say anything about his opponent being Latino because that is politically incorrect.

DoveArrow wrote:

Now admittedly, I'm not a lawyer (or a judge), but my feeling is that the law's primary function is to uphold the rights of individuals, including their right to freedom of speech. If a proposition attempts to alter that function, then I would consider that a revision, because it fundamentally changes the governmental structure of the existing document.

Based on this, I would absolutely consider Proposition 8 a revision, since it overturns the fundamental right of same sex couples to marry as previously enumerated in the state's Constitution and upheld by the California Supreme Court.

The entire purpose of he ammendment process is alter the function of government and "fundamentally change the governmental structure of the existing document." if that was not the case there would be no need for an ammendment. However, this doesn't seem to be being taught anymore. Several ammendment to the U.S. Constitution overturn rights that were previously enumerated in the document and upheld by the Supreme Court, for example the 13th Ammendment, which outlaws slavery. The 19th ammendment, which gave women the right to vote, was another example of an ammendment that fundementally changed the Constitution. No one would argue that these revisions to the Constitution need to be overturned; the only difference between them and Prop. 8 is that the latter is unpopular with a powerful and vocal minority of the population.

If you look, there is no Constitutional right to marry. The state of California places many restrictions on who can marry, including banning polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and establishing a minimum age for marriage. The moment that we establish a "Constitutional right" for people to be married, then it must be extended to everyone. DA, you asked if people would support this ammendment if it were attempting to squash free speech. That is not a good analogy because freedom of speech is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, and even then there are laws, which have...

On the same token if you tried to stop and null all past and future marriages I guarantee there would be an uproar and you'd see a right for marriage brought forward.

It's because in America Christians are always fair targets.

As an atheist who has targeted christians, you have a point.

David and Matthew have a point. The majority of Californians have voted discrimination into their constitution. Is it really the court's job to overrule the people?

I certainly don't pretend to know the intricacies of the Proposition or the Court's assessment of its passage. However, I do believe on question is whether this has served as an amendment or an alteration of the constitution.

BTW - One rebuttal to Matthew. People want government to recognize their unions because of the privileges that go with a recognized union, i.e., taxes, insurance, estates, parental rights, and so forth. To submit that only one sect of unions, i.e., male and female, are legitimate is crudly based on religious principles - and to acknowledge those principles as the driving force for recognized unions serves to discriminate against couples who don't meet those persons' religious principles.

Garydee wrote:

It's because in America Christians are always fair targets.

As an atheist who has targeted christians, you have a point.

But once again I ask, why?

But once again I ask, why?

When I feel christianity is being shoved down my throat.

CourtFool wrote:

Garydee wrote:

It's because in America Christians are always fair targets.

As an atheist who has targeted christians, you have a point.

But once again I ask, why?

I think the answer to this question is that they are the most visibly against the bill, christians are the ones picketing, they're the ones who are speaking out publicly and they're the ones the media has focused on. For most people they only see christians that are opposing it. I know that isn't the case there are others who oppose it on many different reasons, but christians are the only ones we actually see doing it.

I had a couple christain missionaries visit my house a couple of days ago. They wanted to read scripture to me. I told them that I wasn't up for religious proselytizing. The lead missionary said something to the effect that "Jesus preaches that his children shall spread his word." I told them that I wasn't christain. Surprisingly, both were surprised.

I also had some mormons visit me a couple of years ago. I told them that I was secure in my own spiritual beliefs. They asked me of my beliefs. I told them that I was UU. Neither man had ever heard of unitarian universalists. And yet, they then wanted to enlighten me (or convert me) to their beliefs.

Honestly, one of my greatest pet peeves is when an absolute stranger comes to my home to "enlighten" me about the way to true salvation without knowing diddly about me or my beliefs.

Similarly, I do not appreciate when a group seeks to impose its own religious principles on others. The implication is that those religious principles are of greater validity than anyone else's. Again, for the matter at hand, how do we make a clean fix? Quit recognizing the legal institution of 'marriage' across the board. Recognize only civil unions or domestic partnerships. The basis for such contracts is purely legal and has removed any religious implications from all unions.

Crimson Jester wrote:

But once again I ask, why?

When I feel christianity is being shoved down my throat.

And secular left values aren't?

CourtFool wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

But once again I ask, why?

When I feel christianity is being shoved down my throat.

And secular left values aren't?

I think the primary difference here is that the progressive values are more "to each their own" and "live and let live" (so long as no one is being hurt) whereas the conservative non-secular values are more of "no compromise" and "our views are what should apply to everyone" (regardless whether any particular group suffers). The latter has a much stronger element of tyranny or fascism.

First Sam, read the preamble of the Constitution. In fact, I'll post it here for everyone to read. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." There certainly is a common defense clause in the Constitution as the Founders established common defense as one of the primary reasone for the Constitution. Also, you are right, the Constitution does currently forbid all the situations that Matthew presented through the various ammendments. However, he was presenting a hypothetical situation, admittedly a bit extreme, of what might happen if we establish a legal precident of allowing the Court to over turn ammendments based on their interpretation of the original meaning of the document.

I have read it David.

As for hypotheticals, the powers of the Supreme Court are quite clear and limited, despite attempts to provoke fear. If in fact an Amendment is included in a manner that violates the process specified in the Constitution, then in fact the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to declare it unconstitutional. Why does that seem so outrageous to you? Who should have authority in such a case? If no one, then in fact Congress, or the President, could unilaterally revise the Constitution at will, with absolutely nothing to constrain them save insurrection. That would be significantly more of a threat to stability and liberty than the Court asserting its power to judge compliance with the Constitution.

Crimson Jester wrote:

But once again I ask, why?

When I feel christianity is being shoved down my throat.

Maybe thats just you. However I suggest this for you.

I had a couple christain missionaries visit my house a couple of days ago. They wanted to read scripture to me. I told them that I wasn't up for religious proselytizing. The lead missionary said something to the effect that "Jesus preaches that his children shall spread his word." I told them that I wasn't christain. Surprisingly, both were surprised.

I also had some mormons visit me a couple of years ago. I told them that I was secure in my own spiritual beliefs. They asked me of my beliefs. I told them that I was UU. Neither man had ever heard of unitarian universalists. And yet, they then wanted to enlighten me (or convert me) to their beliefs.

Honestly, one of my greatest pet peeves is when an absolute stranger comes to my home to "enlighten" me about the way to true salvation without knowing diddly about me or my beliefs.

Similarly, I do not appreciate when a group seeks to impose its own religious principles on others. The implication is that those religious principles are of greater validity than anyone else's. Again, for the matter at hand, how do we make a clean fix? Quit recognizing the legal institution of 'marriage' across the board. Recognize only civil unions or domestic partnerships. The basis for such contracts is purely legal and has removed any religious implications from all unions.

For those who don't know.

stuff

Sam, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpert law in light of the Constitution. Nothing in Article Three, or in Marbury V. Madison, indicates that the Supreme Court has the power to review the Constitution itself. The only power the Supreme Court has is to determine whether a law is Constitutional. Constitutional Ammendments are not laws, and therefore are not subject to Judicial Review. The act of ammending the Constitution has the effect of making such action as is specified by the ammendment Constitutional. Furthermore, neither the Congress or the President has the power to unilaterally ammend the Constitution. Ant ammendment must first be approved by two-thirds of Congress and then by two-thirds of the American people. The minute that we place in the hands of nine unelected justices who serve for life the power to determine what parts of the Constitution are allowable or not, particularly based on something as open to interpretation as right and wrong, is the moment that we give away our freedoms. No dictator, no assassin, no mass murderer has ever thought they were in the wrong. Both sides of the debate over Prop. 8 believe they are right. We cannot govern a society based on right and wrong, as much as Thomas More wished we could. We must govern our society based on laws, which by nessesity infringe on the rights of some group or another.

Garydee wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

But once again I ask, why?

When I feel christianity is being shoved down my throat.

And secular left values aren't?

I think the primary difference here is that the progressive values are more "to each their own" and "live and let live" (so long as no one is being hurt) whereas the conservative non-secular values are more of "no compromise" and "our views are what should apply to everyone" (regardless whether any particular group suffers). The latter has a much stronger element of tyranny or fascism.

Really? I hate to tell you but progressive values have their own form of fascism to them as well. The godless societies of the 20th century didn't exactly make a good name for themselves. If you look at the kind of society that our own Zombie Neighbors would like to install you can see that progressives are as capable of conservatives at fascism. As far as "to each his own" and "live and let live" is concerned that's a joke. Progressives in America have created a society that you have to be careful what you say or you're labeled. Progressives have gone out of their way to eliminate any form of religion in public society. Do you want me to go on? I'm not saying Christians are perfect. I have my own issues with organized religion, but I'll gladly accept Judeo-Christian values over secular left values.

That's what for me is the main problem.
Every time what I'll call the old ways seem to need to be replaced, the new ways ultimately promise the same bleak outcomes as if through a glass darkly.
It's almost as if the institution in question in and of itsself isn't the problem. The poison is allready injected. It is our birthright as humans.
It was the same when the old ways were the new ways replacing the old ways, and it will be the same on down the line. And when the new ones put on the same masks the old devils donned, nobody will see it. Not even the ones wearing the masks, due to their own self delusion.

The entire purpose of he ammendment process is alter the function of government and "fundamentally change the governmental structure of the existing document." if that was not the case there would be no need for an ammendment.

According to you.

However, this doesn't seem to be being taught anymore. Several ammendment to the U.S. Constitution overturn rights that were previously enumerated in the document and upheld by the Supreme Court, for example the 13th Ammendment, which outlaws slavery. The 19th ammendment, which gave women the right to vote, was another example of an ammendment that fundementally changed the Constitution. No one would argue that these revisions to the Constitution need to be overturned; the only difference between them and Prop. 8 is that the latter is unpopular with a powerful and vocal minority of the population.

As it happens, these are quite similar to the arguments used by those who demand the immediate invalidation of the 16th Amendment, and the end to all taxes on income.

If you look, there is no Constitutional right to marry. The state of California places many restrictions on who can marry, including banning polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and establishing a minimum age for marriage. The moment that we establish a "Constitutional right" for people to be married, then it must be extended to everyone.

According to previous judicial rulings in California, there is a constitutional right to marry.

DA, you asked if people would support this ammendment if it were attempting to squash free speech. That is not a good analogy because freedom of speech is explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, and even then there are laws, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, that place restrictions on free speech. A better question would be, would people who are opposed to Prop. 8 be so supportive of a law allowing brother and sister to marry, to allow polygamous marriges, or allowing a 60 year old man to marry a 12 year old girl? If the answer is no, then the Constitutional right to marry argument loses all justification.

And yet given that people are, today, actively advocating laws to squash freedom of speech, that is indeed not a good example to use, as people, including many groups that vehemently oppose Proposition 8.

As such, it remains both an equal protection issue and a reasonable restriction issue, and so both issues must be considered by the court.

Oh, and I say
let gay people get married; who cares?

CourtFool wrote:

David and Matthew have a point. The majority of Californians have voted discrimination into their constitution. Is it really the court's job to overrule the people?

I certainly don't pretend to know the intricacies of the Proposition or the Court's assessment of its passage. However, I do believe on question is whether this has served as an amendment or an alteration of the constitution.

BTW - One rebuttal to Matthew. People want government to recognize their unions because of the privileges that go with a recognized union, i.e., taxes, insurance, estates, parental rights, and so forth. To submit that only one sect of unions, i.e., male and female, are legitimate is crudly based on religious principles - and to acknowledge those principles as the driving force for recognized unions serves to discriminate against couples who don't meet those persons' religious principles.

So then, you extend it to polygamous, incestous relationships too. i'm sure they want their unions to be recognized too, and you don't want to discriminate against them do you?

I do not deny that taking advanage of the one legally recognized instuttion gives benefits to the members. And I'd support the creation of a seperate recognized entity for same sex coutples. Call it 'fred' if you want. I have argued that point, a lot, in the past.

But the state may restrict marriage to certain eligible parties. It has, and it should be able to provide criteria. I can't take maternity leave, because I'm a guy. Heath care policies discriminate against men by not allowing them a free mammogram.

Baker v Nelson ruled that it doesn't violate the Federal constitution to discriminaate marriage to opposite sex individuals.

As to this entire 'significant alteration' bit. Wasn't this challenged before hand? And if not, why not. It doesn't change that this lawsuit is inviting the California surpreme court to take an ammendment, appropriately approved by the process outlined in the consitution to be <i>retoractively</i> considered null and void. What's to keep future judges from taking other ammendments and have them declared null and void because they 'siginicantly revise' the consitution?

Sam, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpert law in light of the Constitution. Nothing in Article Three, or in Marbury V. Madison, indicates that the Supreme Court has the power to review the Constitution itself. The only power the Supreme Court has is to determine whether a law is Constitutional. Constitutional Ammendments are not laws, and therefore are not subject to Judicial Review. The act of ammending the Constitution has the effect of making such action as is specified by the ammendment Constitutional.

You are wrong.

Furthermore, neither the Congress or the President has the power to unilaterally ammend the Constitution. Ant ammendment must first be approved by two-thirds of Congress and then by two-thirds of the American people.

According to you, they most certainly do have that power, for if they should do such a thing you have barred the Supreme Court for considering any challenges to such an act.

The minute that we place in the hands of nine unelected justices who serve for life the power to determine what parts of the Constitution are allowable or not, particularly based on something as open to interpretation as right and wrong, is the moment that we give away our freedoms. No dictator, no assassin, no mass murderer has ever thought they were in the wrong.

That the judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (several Presidents, and several Senates technically), in no way diminishes the status of the Supreme Court. To suggest it does is to challenge the legitimacy of the Constitution. You refuse to allow the Supreme Court such power yet you demand it for yourself?

Both sides of the debate over Prop. 8 believe they are right. We cannot govern a society based on right and wrong, as much as Thomas More wished we could. We must govern our society based on laws, which by nessesity infringe on the rights of some group or another.

And yet you refuse to allow the court established by those laws to judge the validity of the laws to function.

David Fryer wrote:

Sam, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpert law in light of the Constitution. Nothing in Article Three, or in Marbury V. Madison, indicates that the Supreme Court has the power to review the Constitution itself. The only power the Supreme Court has is to determine whether a law is Constitutional. Constitutional Ammendments are not laws, and therefore are not subject to Judicial Review. The act of ammending the Constitution has the effect of making such action as is specified by the ammendment Constitutional.

You are wrong.

The history of the death penalty demonstrates quite sufficiently that, in fact and law, the Supreme Court does actually and actively review the Constitution in determining whether laws are constitutional are not.

Your right, they do review the Constitution to determine whether a law is Constitutional. However, since the death penelty is not written into the Constituti, challenges to the death penelty does not create a precident for overturning a Constitutional ammendment. Since the ratification of the 16th 1n 1913, according to the Supreme Court archive, the court has never heard a challenge to the 16th Ammendment.

So then, you extend it to polygamous, incestous relationships too. i'm sure they want their unions to be recognized too, and you don't want to discriminate against them do you?

You must first establish that polygamists and incestuous couples constitute sepcific, identifiable groups, and that they have been subjected to specific discrimination.

I do not deny that taking advanage of the one legally recognized instuttion gives benefits to the members. And I'd support the creation of a seperate recognized entity for same sex coutples. Call it 'fred' if you want. I have argued that point, a lot, in the past.

For California, that difference in terminology creates a de facto violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

But the state may restrict marriage to certain eligible parties. It has, and it should be able to provide criteria. I can't take maternity leave, because I'm a guy. Heath care policies discriminate against men by not allowing them a free mammogram.

Only within the limits of the equal protection clause though.

Baker v Nelson ruled that it doesn't violate the Federal constitution to discriminaate marriage to opposite sex individuals.

And yet it does not establish that such violates state constitutions.

As to this entire 'significant alteration' bit. Wasn't this challenged before hand? And if not, why not. It doesn't change that this lawsuit is inviting the California surpreme court to take an ammendment, appropriately approved by the process outlined in the consitution to be <i>retoractively</i> considered null and void. What's to keep future judges from taking other ammendments and have them declared null and void because they 'siginicantly revise' the consitution?

Those are issues the California Supreme Court will have to resolve at the appropriate time.