Proposition 8 begins with the words:

[FirmaFan]

"Eliminates the right..."

How could anyone support a proposition that begins with such a dangerous title as that?

 

[tonyboy]

"Eliminates the right..."

How could anyone support a proposition that begins with such a dangerous title as that?

First to jav1231.... it wasn't a constitutional amendent that this proposed amendment is about.... it was a ruling by the CA supreme court.

And to firmafan....
Well about a year ago I'd say that I would have been in favor of the proposed US constitutional amendment proposing marriage be between only a man and a woman. I've changed my thoughts on that.

But your thread ^ doesn't really explain the background of this prop.
The 'right' that is proposed to be eliminated is not a right that was granted by the CA or the USA constitution. It was a so called 'right' given by a small group of people in the CA Supreme Court.
There was no amendment voted on by the citizens of CA to allow that same sex marriage should exist. It was just a whim by a few judges to grant that so called right.
I do belive in same sex marriage as long as the individual states approve it through an constitutional amendment or through referendum, however a states law says these things should be decided.
I'm basically a Federalist.... that means that states should decide things that are left up to them to decide based on the US Consitituion. As in the Tenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

No matter what we as individuals wish to be the law there must be some structure and rule of law in our country. Hell if I had my way I'd change many things.
But it must be done by conscenus, through the legislature, not by the whim of a group of people in the USA or State Supreme courts.

The courts have gone much too far in recent years, taking the power of the legislatures away... and the legislatures have pretty much given in up. State as well as the National legislature.
As long as those of get our way by a state or national Supreme Court decision we seem to say 'fine, ok... I got my way'.... but the problem is that next time a court decides something you may not agree with it.
The courts are not almighty by any means... and they should't be.
So to sum it up FirmaFan.... while I'd oppose Prop 8 myslef.... the introduction in the wording is proper.
There is no right to gay marriage.... what the authors of the prop were saying is that the courts say there is a 'right'.... where there is none.
Our right are explained in the US Bill of Rights.
Anything other than what is specified there must be determined by the people or the state legislature.... Very plain and clear in the 10th Amendment.

 

[syntax]

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop8

I hope that CA voters know that a NO VOTE on this amendment is the way to go.

 

[Jihiro]

That is simply appalling... It makes me wish I lived in California if only to vote NO to this mockery of everything America is supposed to stand for. And yet fails all too often at living up to.

Where is 'Freedom and Justice for All' here?

 

[construct]

First to jav1231.... it wasn't a constitutional amendent that this proposed amendment is about.... it was a ruling by the CA supreme court.

The description is accurate in that it does in fact eliminate a right.

And to firmafan....
Well about a year ago I'd say that I would have been in favor of the proposed US constitutional amendment proposing marriage be between only a man and a woman. I've changed my thoughts on that.

But your thread ^ doesn't really explain the background of this prop.
The 'right' that is proposed to be eliminated is not a right that was granted by the CA or the USA constitution. It was a so called 'right' given by a small group of people in the CA Supreme Court.

This right is not "granted" by the CA constitution. It is protected by the CA constitution. It's just that no one knew it until the plaintiffs complained about its being violated for all these years.

There was no amendment voted on by the citizens of CA to allow that same sex marriage should exist.

No amendment was needed to grant that right.

It was just a whim by a few judges to grant that so called right.

No judges granted any such right. It was there all along unrecognized.

I do belive in same sex marriage as long as the individual states approve it through an constitutional amendment or through referendum, however a states law says these things should be decided.

And in this case, the California law was struck down because it violated the state constitution.

I'm basically a Federalist.... that means that states should decide things that are left up to them to decide based on the US Consitituion. As in the Tenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

No matter what we as individuals wish to be the law there must be some structure and rule of law in our country. Hell if I had my way I'd change many things.
But it must be done by conscenus, through the legislature, not by the whim of a group of people in the USA or State Supreme courts.

Then I presume you oppose the proposition because it arose by petition rather than through the legislature.

The courts have gone much too far in recent years, taking the power of the legislatures away... and the legislatures have pretty much given in up. State as well as the National legislature.

The California legislature has twice passed bills to allow same-sex marriage. Gov. Schwarzeneger vetoed those bills saying that it was a matter for the court to decide. He now opposes this proposition which would overturn the court's decision.

As long as those of get our way by a state or national Supreme Court decision we seem to say 'fine, ok... I got my way'.... but the problem is that next time a court decides something you may not agree with it.
The courts are not almighty by any means... and they should't be.

Is judicial review a good thing?

So to sum it up FirmaFan.... while I'd oppose Prop 8 myslef.... the introduction in the wording is proper.
There is no right to gay marriage.... what the authors of the prop were saying is that the courts say there is a 'right'.... where there is none.
Our right are explained in the US Bill of Rights.

This is a state law case and consistent with the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and with DOMA.

Anything other than what is specified there must be determined by the people or the state legislature.... Very plain and clear in the 10th Amendment.

The Calif. Supr. Ct. did not err in this way.

 

[Kurn]

Tony's Argument is missing the crucial aspect of what the Justices of the California Supreme Court did. They found that a previous anti-Gay marriage amendment was in conflict with 14th Amendment Guarantee of equal protection of the law.
If you talk to pro-8 people they frequently fail to understand this basic aspect of the issue. It has nothing to do with the "whims" of some of the Justices.
The initiative in question which was passed by a slim majority of voters about 4 years ago was found to be in conflict with the Constitution. So they decided what they decided---back in June, I think---and these people started this initiative which involves amending the state Constitution. Part of the initiative involves a slander campaign against the Justices who were really just doing their job.

And Construct is correct. Thankyou.

I heard a poll today say that NO was 5 points ahead! Glory hallelujah! I might even go to church if this ugly thing dies!

 

[construct]

Tony's Argument is missing the crucial aspect of what the Justices of the California Supreme Court did. They found that a previous anti-Gay marriage amendment was in conflict with 14th Amendment Guarantee of equal protection of the law.

If there was a federal question, why didn't the defendants remove it to federal court or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? Have you read the case?

The initiative in question which was passed by a slim majority of voters about 4 years ago was found to be in conflict with the Constitution. So they decided what they decided---back in June, I think---and these people started this initiative which involves amending the state Constitution. Part of the initiative involves a slander campaign against the Justices who were really just doing their job.

This I agree with.

 

[Kurn]

I haven't read the case; I have only read the news reports citing the 14th Amendment conflict. 14th Amendment is closely paralleled by the State Constitution. I assume it's in there somewhere. Our state constitution is not something I have succeeded in reading; it's horrible to read; that's one of California's many challenges although wildfires and Paris Hilton and other matters have it pretty much buried. Maybe I'll try again.

 

[construct]

I haven't read the case; I have only read the news reports citing the 14th Amendment conflict. 14th Amendment is closely paralleled by the State Constitution. I assume it's in there somewhere. Our state constitution is not something I have succeeded in reading; it's horrible to read; that's one of California's many challenges although wildfires and Paris Hilton and other matters have it pretty much buried. Maybe I'll try again.

You think you've got it bad! We have one of those unreconstructed Reconstruction constitutions that we have to amend nearly every election cycle.

While it is quite likely that the Calif. Supr. Ct. reviewed 14th Amendment jurisprudence (as did the Conn. Supr. Ct. in their recent decision), I suspect that this was merely persuasive authority and that no federal question was raised, given the procedural history of the case. The major players in gay marriage litigation have been avoiding federal questions like the plague, and I don't blame them given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[construct]

Here's a .pdf file for In re Marriage Cases, Calif. Supr. Ct., S. 147999. If you or anyone else would like to check to see whether I have understood correctly, I would welcome feedback. I may have missed something.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

 

[Kurn]

I breezed through the first 80 pages of the decision and I heartily recommend it as a digest of many issues relevant to our civilization, both generally and particularly.

Skipping the footnotes is recommended for a first read.
It is broadly-speaking, a discussion of the inter-relationships of Due Process, Equal Protection and Legal Marriage.
I dare say, future generations will read it.

Proposition 8 is squarely a violation of the religious sensibilities, broadly speaking, of gay people and gay couples fostered by people who are ignorant of the human condition and its inherent permutations.

 

[construct]

In reviewing the case, I notice that, unlike the Connecticut Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court gave very little attention to federal 14th Amendment protections. Thus, the case should be understood as a strong implicit reassertion of federalism under the 10th Amendment. The Connecticut court in a similar case had relied on 14th Amendment jurisprudence as a persuasive parallel to interpret the state constitutional provisions. However, neither court based its opinion on the U.S. Constitution.

I would also call attention to pp. 119-21 of the opinion in which the court determined the remedy. Here the court rejected the option of deinstitutionalizing marriage. This will come as a disappointment to a few of our members.

 

[FirmaFan]

The wording of prop 8 in the eyes of this girl...

Pretty girl but wronggggggg and promoting ignorance. I bet she loves Sarah Palin as evidence of her "verbage" crap.

I watched her little video, and, in addition to convincing herself that Prop 8 has nothing to do with rights, she has convinced herself that it has everything to do with simply "marriage", thereby eliminating, in her mind, the harm it has on gay people, because, she's convinced it's not about being gay, it's about "marriage."

To put this in perspective, I'll use her logic and apply it to several other well known cases such as this:

Black people being able to vote is not a rights issue, it's a "Voting" issue.

Black people sitting on the back of the bus is not a rights issue, it's a "transportation" issue.

women in the workplace is not a rights issue, it's a "labor" issue.

Do you see how that even though these issues were "about" something, they were all inherently about people's rights, and about equality for all. Prop 8 is about marriage, which eliminates equality for all, it eliminates the right to marry for people simply because they are different. What horrible people could conceive of such a thing.

And I wonder how she would feel if she was told that because of the feelings and prejudices of people she doesn't know, and that don't know her, she is not allowed to marry the person she loves, whomever that might be.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Well, Senator Obama certainly doesn't want that right lost!

He also doesn't want gays to have it in the first place.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html

 

[hotatlboi]

Well, Senator Obama certainly doesn't want that right lost!

He also doesn't want gays to have it in the first place.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html

He says right now he is not in favor of national gay marriage. But he is in favor of letting states decide for themselves. So that's consistent with his opposition to prop 8. Whether he personally believes gays should have the right to be married is unknown, he may indeed. But that is a politically impossible position to take right now and win a national election.

 

[syntax]

Well, Senator Obama certainly doesn't want that right lost!

He also doesn't want gays to have it in the first place.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=238598

NOC to CE&P: "I know you're wrong and dirty, but I just can't quit you."

 

[Kulindahr]

Two things:

First: rights are not granted by laws; they are inherent -- that's why they're "rights". This is because government is an artificial construct; there's nothing in the nature of existence which requires or makes inevitable the existence of government. So all of government's authority comes from "the just consent of the governed", by the surrender of some of their personal authority to general representatives to carry out, for the purpose of securing and protecting their rights. When government becomes abusive of these ends, the people can kick it out, either by ballots or bullets, and start over.
So there's no such thing as 'inventing a right'; that's a contradiction in terms. The U.S. Constitution explicitly recognizes that many rights not listed exist, and indeed many of those have been made clear in law and judicial decisions, such as the rights to privacy, freedom of association, and conscientious objection.



Second: It's perfectly reasonable for a politician to have a personal view that is different from his "civic" or public view. For example, a person my believe that Ouija boards are Satanic and of the Devil, but acknowledge that the law of the land gives people freedom to play with them.



Anyone with a basic understanding of the first point will see those words of the explanation of the measure, and as a good American avoid throwing up on the paper long enough to mark the ballot "FU!"... or, rather, fill in the little spot by the "NO" option.

Also, anyone with a decent grasp of the first point will see that the second point is derived from it.