California Prop 8

[bodecea]

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

Simply not true.

There are of course outliers, but they are the exception, not the rule. The only real rule break was polygamy is some cultures. If you have to go to some small sect that was wiped out in the Yellow river valley in 3 BC for an example of legitimate same sex marriage then you are not really proving your point.

I have nothing wrong with people wanting to legalize same sex marriage, but I do have issues with the methods some use to get to it. Using the courts via made up consitutional rights and claiming that there is no social or economic precendent against it weak in my opinion.

Fess up to the fact that you are trying to overturn centuries of precedent and established law and tradtion and I may have more respect for your position.

Polygamy in SOME cultures? You'd best look to your world history....it was Polygamy in MOST cultures thru MOST of recorded history.....Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India...etc. and keep in mind that marriage in MOST of the world today and pretty much ALL of the world until about 200 years ago was about property and inheritance rights only....love had nothing to do with it. The same people ranting about "traditional" marriage are appalled by those coming to this country trying to carry on REAL traditional marriage....arrainged marriaged, multiple marriages, marriages of older men with young teen girls, honor killings, etc. How Ironic.

 

[Common Sense]

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

yes states have passed their own bans. i never said that they didnt so get your facts straight. but in California it was deemed illegal by a federal judge because 1) it should have never been on the ballot in the first place, and 2) it was a deprivation of a fundamental right.

you dont answer these questions either. so i call you a coward back for you changing the argument away from the merits of this case. quit deflecting and explain to me why you can legally deprive a minority group of a basic fundamental right? (or is your argument that marriage is not a basic fundamental right, and we can legislate who can and cant get married) does this then mean we can take away women's rights to vote or own property and give that back to just men? what about interracial marriage, do we ban that again?

California:
"Federal Laws. The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage. Current federal law only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. (The law affects matters such as the receipt of federal benefits and federal taxes.) State Laws. The State Constitution currently does not define marriage. Under current California statute, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. Couples of the same sex or unmarried couples of the opposite sex where at least one partner is 62 years or older may register as domestic partners. In most instances, registered domestic partners are provided the same rights and benefits as married couples. Rights of marriage include, but are not limited to, alimony and community property rights." (California Marriage Definition Act)

you also fail to take your personal emotions out of the equation and look at the legal argument. which is simply that a minority group of people is being denied a basic fundamental right by discrimination. tell me how this doesnt qualify as discrimination?

how about you answer bodecea about the prevalent use of polygamy throughout history? or did this never happen as well?



Judge Reinhardt said it best yesterday when Mr. Cooper made his argument that marriage is needed in "maintaining stable families and ensuring the legitimacy of children"

He said: "That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce."

so do we outlaw divorce as well to protect the "institution of marriage"?

 

[martybegan]

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

yes states have passed their own bans. i never said that they didnt so get your facts straight. but in California it was deemed illegal by a federal judge because 1) it should have never been on the ballot in the first place, and 2) it was a deprivation of a fundamental right.

you dont answer these questions either. so i call you a coward back for you changing the argument away from the merits of this case. quit deflecting and explain to me why you can legally deprive a minority group of a basic fundamental right? (or is your argument that marriage is not a basic fundamental right, and we can legislate who can and cant get married) does this then mean we can take away women's rights to vote or own property and give that back to just men? what about interracial marriage, do we ban that again?

California:
"Federal Laws. The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage. Current federal law only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. (The law affects matters such as the receipt of federal benefits and federal taxes.) State Laws. The State Constitution currently does not define marriage. Under current California statute, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. Couples of the same sex or unmarried couples of the opposite sex where at least one partner is 62 years or older may register as domestic partners. In most instances, registered domestic partners are provided the same rights and benefits as married couples. Rights of marriage include, but are not limited to, alimony and community property rights." (California Marriage Definition Act)

you also fail to take your personal emotions out of the equation and look at the legal argument. which is simply that a minority group of people is being denied a basic fundamental right by discrimination. tell me how this doesnt qualify as discrimination?

how about you answer bodecea about the prevalent use of polygamy throughout history? or did this never happen as well?



Judge Reinhardt said it best yesterday when Mr. Cooper made his argument that marriage is needed in "maintaining stable families and ensuring the legitimacy of children"

He said: "That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce."

so do we outlaw divorce as well to protect the "institution of marriage"?

Nice to have a direct response.

My responses have nothing to do with emotion. Again, if you can convince legislatures to legalize gay marriage then the constitution does not prevent you from doing that. I have never even argued the moral merits of the case, simply what I see as a misuse of the courts and constitutional law.

The people of california tried to amend thier consitution. When you do this you take the state courts out of the equation regardless of something being a fundemental right. an amendment becomes consitutional. The amendment was voted on properly and proposed properly. The question of it violating the federal constituion is a legitimate one, but my opinion is there is nothing in the consitution guaranteeing a right to marrying whoever you want.

You kept saying that there were no laws stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. you were wrong. As for bo's point, even in polygamy the marriage was between the man, and the women as indivuduals, not as an amorphous blob. It was still the traditional defininiton of marriage, just repeated over and over using the same dude.

It is evident you support gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with that. My issue is soley with the method that supporters are trying to use to get to it.

 

[martybegan]

Simply not true.

There are of course outliers, but they are the exception, not the rule. The only real rule break was polygamy is some cultures. If you have to go to some small sect that was wiped out in the Yellow river valley in 3 BC for an example of legitimate same sex marriage then you are not really proving your point.

I have nothing wrong with people wanting to legalize same sex marriage, but I do have issues with the methods some use to get to it. Using the courts via made up consitutional rights and claiming that there is no social or economic precendent against it weak in my opinion.

Fess up to the fact that you are trying to overturn centuries of precedent and established law and tradtion and I may have more respect for your position.

Polygamy in SOME cultures? You'd best look to your world history....it was Polygamy in MOST cultures thru MOST of recorded history.....Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India...etc. and keep in mind that marriage in MOST of the world today and pretty much ALL of the world until about 200 years ago was about property and inheritance rights only....love had nothing to do with it. The same people ranting about "traditional" marriage are appalled by those coming to this country trying to carry on REAL traditional marriage....arrainged marriaged, multiple marriages, marriages of older men with young teen girls, honor killings, etc. How Ironic.

The marriages were still between the 1 man, and each woman as an individual, it was not a polyamerous blob. And polygamy even if it was part of the culture was mainly for the wealthy and powerful.

 

[bodecea]

how about you stop ignoring me pointing out that 30 states have amendments banning gay marriage, or that since time started marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and only now are people trying to change the definintion.

Or are you too much of an intellectual coward, like so many on this board, when confronted with logic that overrules your cherished beliefs?

yes states have passed their own bans. i never said that they didnt so get your facts straight. but in California it was deemed illegal by a federal judge because 1) it should have never been on the ballot in the first place, and 2) it was a deprivation of a fundamental right.

you dont answer these questions either. so i call you a coward back for you changing the argument away from the merits of this case. quit deflecting and explain to me why you can legally deprive a minority group of a basic fundamental right? (or is your argument that marriage is not a basic fundamental right, and we can legislate who can and cant get married) does this then mean we can take away women's rights to vote or own property and give that back to just men? what about interracial marriage, do we ban that again?

California:
"Federal Laws. The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage. Current federal law only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. (The law affects matters such as the receipt of federal benefits and federal taxes.) State Laws. The State Constitution currently does not define marriage. Under current California statute, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. Couples of the same sex or unmarried couples of the opposite sex where at least one partner is 62 years or older may register as domestic partners. In most instances, registered domestic partners are provided the same rights and benefits as married couples. Rights of marriage include, but are not limited to, alimony and community property rights." (California Marriage Definition Act)

you also fail to take your personal emotions out of the equation and look at the legal argument. which is simply that a minority group of people is being denied a basic fundamental right by discrimination. tell me how this doesnt qualify as discrimination?

how about you answer bodecea about the prevalent use of polygamy throughout history? or did this never happen as well?



Judge Reinhardt said it best yesterday when Mr. Cooper made his argument that marriage is needed in "maintaining stable families and ensuring the legitimacy of children"

He said: "That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce."

so do we outlaw divorce as well to protect the "institution of marriage"?

Nice to have a direct response.

My responses have nothing to do with emotion. Again, if you can convince legislatures to legalize gay marriage then the constitution does not prevent you from doing that. I have never even argued the moral merits of the case, simply what I see as a misuse of the courts and constitutional law.

The people of california tried to amend thier consitution. When you do this you take the state courts out of the equation regardless of something being a fundemental right. an amendment becomes consitutional. The amendment was voted on properly and proposed properly. The question of it violating the federal constituion is a legitimate one, but my opinion is there is nothing in the consitution guaranteeing a right to marrying whoever you want.

You kept saying that there were no laws stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. you were wrong. As for bo's point, even in polygamy the marriage was between the man, and the women as indivuduals, not as an amorphous blob. It was still the traditional defininiton of marriage, just repeated over and over using the same dude.

It is evident you support gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with that. My issue is soley with the method that supporters are trying to use to get to it.

Sometimes, courts have to lead the way......how many schools in the U.S. would STILL be segregated waiting for the legislature if it weren't for the courts?

How many states would STILL have religious tests for public employment if it weren't for thecourts?

How many municipalities would STILL have gun restrictions if it weren't for the courts?

 

[martybegan]

yes states have passed their own bans. i never said that they didnt so get your facts straight. but in California it was deemed illegal by a federal judge because 1) it should have never been on the ballot in the first place, and 2) it was a deprivation of a fundamental right.

you dont answer these questions either. so i call you a coward back for you changing the argument away from the merits of this case. quit deflecting and explain to me why you can legally deprive a minority group of a basic fundamental right? (or is your argument that marriage is not a basic fundamental right, and we can legislate who can and cant get married) does this then mean we can take away women's rights to vote or own property and give that back to just men? what about interracial marriage, do we ban that again?

California:
"Federal Laws. The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage. Current federal law only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman. (The law affects matters such as the receipt of federal benefits and federal taxes.) State Laws. The State Constitution currently does not define marriage. Under current California statute, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. Couples of the same sex or unmarried couples of the opposite sex where at least one partner is 62 years or older may register as domestic partners. In most instances, registered domestic partners are provided the same rights and benefits as married couples. Rights of marriage include, but are not limited to, alimony and community property rights." (California Marriage Definition Act)

you also fail to take your personal emotions out of the equation and look at the legal argument. which is simply that a minority group of people is being denied a basic fundamental right by discrimination. tell me how this doesnt qualify as discrimination?

how about you answer bodecea about the prevalent use of polygamy throughout history? or did this never happen as well?



Judge Reinhardt said it best yesterday when Mr. Cooper made his argument that marriage is needed in "maintaining stable families and ensuring the legitimacy of children"

He said: "That sounds like a good argument for prohibiting divorce."

so do we outlaw divorce as well to protect the "institution of marriage"?

Nice to have a direct response.

My responses have nothing to do with emotion. Again, if you can convince legislatures to legalize gay marriage then the constitution does not prevent you from doing that. I have never even argued the moral merits of the case, simply what I see as a misuse of the courts and constitutional law.

The people of california tried to amend thier consitution. When you do this you take the state courts out of the equation regardless of something being a fundemental right. an amendment becomes consitutional. The amendment was voted on properly and proposed properly. The question of it violating the federal constituion is a legitimate one, but my opinion is there is nothing in the consitution guaranteeing a right to marrying whoever you want.

You kept saying that there were no laws stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. you were wrong. As for bo's point, even in polygamy the marriage was between the man, and the women as indivuduals, not as an amorphous blob. It was still the traditional defininiton of marriage, just repeated over and over using the same dude.

It is evident you support gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with that. My issue is soley with the method that supporters are trying to use to get to it.

Sometimes, courts have to lead the way......how many schools in the U.S. would STILL be segregated waiting for the legislature if it weren't for the courts?

How many states would STILL have religious tests for public employment if it weren't for thecourts?

How many municipalities would STILL have gun restrictions if it weren't for the courts?

In all those cases, the courts were/are correcting previous misinterpretations of things already in the constituion. In the case of segregation, the courts corrected previous decsions made by racist assholes who were in the courts at the time. Plessy V. Ferguson is an example of absolute crap judgements that were rightly overturned by the courts.

The religous test is the same thing. A test is establishment, and this is explicitly banned in the constitution.

With the gun restrictions, again (at least to me) the courts are striking down laws that are in direct opposition to the 2nd amendment.

When it comes to same sex marriage, the constitution does not say anything at all. It doesnt even talk about marriage. Using the courts to create a right out of thin air is in my opinion wrong. The proper way, since the constitution is neutral on it, is to legislate it. That requires more work, I admit, but again we are entilted to the "pursuit of happiness", not having happiness dropped in our lap.

Since I havent stated my opinion on it, I will now. To me marriage is man/women. That being said a politican's viewpoint either way would not affect my vote for them. My issue is with the half assed method used by supporters to get what they want.

 

[Common Sense]

Nice to have a direct response.

My responses have nothing to do with emotion. Again, if you can convince legislatures to legalize gay marriage then the constitution does not prevent you from doing that. I have never even argued the moral merits of the case, simply what I see as a misuse of the courts and constitutional law.

The people of california tried to amend thier consitution. When you do this you take the state courts out of the equation regardless of something being a fundemental right. an amendment becomes consitutional. The amendment was voted on properly and proposed properly. The question of it violating the federal constituion is a legitimate one, but my opinion is there is nothing in the consitution guaranteeing a right to marrying whoever you want.

You kept saying that there were no laws stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. you were wrong. As for bo's point, even in polygamy the marriage was between the man, and the women as indivuduals, not as an amorphous blob. It was still the traditional defininiton of marriage, just repeated over and over using the same dude.

It is evident you support gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with that. My issue is soley with the method that supporters are trying to use to get to it.

its not a question of whether i support or do not support gay marriage. i do not support incestuous marriage or polygamy, but if gay marriage is proven to be legal, those groups would have an argument as well for their legal ban. i support the rights of the individual to be the same across the board. that is the underlying case here. you are treating a minority group of people differently under that law. we used to treat blacks, asians and women as lesser than white males under the law. that has since been changed by the courts. progress takes times and we are at that point with the gay community.

this is actually not a federal constitution question. although it has been appealed to the federal level because that is the way our courts system works.

point out the exact law and legal text that defines marriage as between a man and a woman in california. it simply does not exist. i have asked this sefveral times now and you simply ignore the request. i have even posted the legal text stating that it is not defined and you still dont answer me on that.

and it was actually not legal for the group who proposed prop 8 to do so, because it does not follow the law when changing the state constitution:

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

The last constitutional convention was held in 1879. As the above history illustrates, the constitutional convention method has not been a significant tool for changing the California constitution. [No. 6]

Amendment by Legislative Initiative.

California

Article XVIII, section 1 of the state constitution provides for amendment or revision, proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses and thereafter submitted to the electorate for approval. [No. 16] As regards amendments, each may pertain to only one subject and each must be voted on separately. [No. 17]

Amendment By Popular Initiative.

California.

Adopting the belief of the early twentieth century progressive movement that "all political power is inherent in the people," the state's electorate ratified the initiative process. [No. 27] The initiative process provided a means to institute direct legislation and constitutional amendments while bypassing the legislature. [No. 28] The California state constitution is one of few that allows nearly unchecked constitutional amendment by popular initiative.

Article XVIII, section 3 states that "electors may amend the

Constitution by initiative." [No. 29] Article II, section 8 defines an initiative as the power of the electorate to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution, and to reject or adopt them. [No. 30] Article II also requires the following:

(1) that an initiative to amend the Constitution is proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition with the text of the proposed amendment. The petition must be certified to have been signed by eight percent (8%) of the voters for all candidates for governor in the last gubernatorial election;

(2) that the Secretary of State shall submit the amendments to the voters at the next general election or at a special election called by the governor; and

(3) that the initiative measure may cover only one subject. [No. 31]

Note that the third requirement limits each popular initiative to a single subject.

Also important is the fact that California allows constitutional "amendment," but not "revision," by popular initiative. The legislature, however, has the authority to both amend and revise the state constitution. This difference can be traced to a long standing distinction in California between constitutional revision and amendment. [No. 32]

A revision involves a comprehensive change to the basic governmental plan. Where it appears that a change will substantially alter the basic governmental framework provided in the state constitution (e.g. a change in the role between the judiciary and the rights of criminal defendants), then a constitutional revision, rather than an amendment, must be sought. [No. 33] In contrast, an amendment is somewhat more limited in its purpose and affects fewer constitutional provisions. [No. 34]

To distinguish between revision and amendment, one should make both a quantitative and a qualitative determination [No. 35] For example, proposed alterations are interpreted as calling for constitutional revision when they affect a number of provisions in various parts of the constitution. [No. 36] Additionally, courts have also considered the nature of the changes proposed by the amendment or revision. [No. 37]

In California, the differentiation between amendments and revisions dates back to the 19th century. The 1879 Constitution precluded revision by amendment, permitting only narrow and specific constitutional amendment by legislative initiative. [No. 38] However, in 1962 the voters approved an amendment which authorized the legislature to propose constitutional revisions just as it proposes amendments. [No. 39] Thus, today constitutional revisions may be proposed by legislative (but not popular) initiative.

(Approaches to Altering State Constitutions)

since these procedures were not followed, the proposition is illegal no matter what the issue is. they actually wrote the proposition so that it would be barred from review by both the governor and the state legislature, which is also illegal under the state constitution. they did not follow the correct procedure in trying to amend the state constitution which i posted above.

 

[martybegan]

its not a question of whether i support or do not support gay marriage. i do not support incestuous marriage or polygamy, but if gay marriage is proven to be legal, those groups would have an argument as well for their legal ban. i support the rights of the individual to be the same across the board. that is the underlying case here. you are treating a minority group of people differently under that law. we used to treat blacks, asians and women as lesser than white males under the law. that has since been changed by the courts. progress takes times and we are at that point with the gay community.

this is actually not a federal constitution question. although it has been appealed to the federal level because that is the way our courts system works.

point out the exact law and legal text that defines marriage as between a man and a woman in california. it simply does not exist. i have asked this sefveral times now and you simply ignore the request. i have even posted the legal text stating that it is not defined and you still dont answer me on that.

and it was actually not legal for the group who proposed prop 8 to do so, because it does not follow the law when changing the state constitution:

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

The last constitutional convention was held in 1879. As the above history illustrates, the constitutional convention method has not been a significant tool for changing the California constitution. [No. 6]

Amendment by Legislative Initiative.

California

Article XVIII, section 1 of the state constitution provides for amendment or revision, proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses and thereafter submitted to the electorate for approval. [No. 16] As regards amendments, each may pertain to only one subject and each must be voted on separately. [No. 17]

Amendment By Popular Initiative.

California.

Adopting the belief of the early twentieth century progressive movement that "all political power is inherent in the people," the state's electorate ratified the initiative process. [No. 27] The initiative process provided a means to institute direct legislation and constitutional amendments while bypassing the legislature. [No. 28] The California state constitution is one of few that allows nearly unchecked constitutional amendment by popular initiative.

Article XVIII, section 3 states that "electors may amend the

Constitution by initiative." [No. 29] Article II, section 8 defines an initiative as the power of the electorate to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution, and to reject or adopt them. [No. 30] Article II also requires the following:

(1) that an initiative to amend the Constitution is proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition with the text of the proposed amendment. The petition must be certified to have been signed by eight percent (8%) of the voters for all candidates for governor in the last gubernatorial election;

(2) that the Secretary of State shall submit the amendments to the voters at the next general election or at a special election called by the governor; and

(3) that the initiative measure may cover only one subject. [No. 31]

Note that the third requirement limits each popular initiative to a single subject.

Also important is the fact that California allows constitutional "amendment," but not "revision," by popular initiative. The legislature, however, has the authority to both amend and revise the state constitution. This difference can be traced to a long standing distinction in California between constitutional revision and amendment. [No. 32]

A revision involves a comprehensive change to the basic governmental plan. Where it appears that a change will substantially alter the basic governmental framework provided in the state constitution (e.g. a change in the role between the judiciary and the rights of criminal defendants), then a constitutional revision, rather than an amendment, must be sought. [No. 33] In contrast, an amendment is somewhat more limited in its purpose and affects fewer constitutional provisions. [No. 34]

To distinguish between revision and amendment, one should make both a quantitative and a qualitative determination [No. 35] For example, proposed alterations are interpreted as calling for constitutional revision when they affect a number of provisions in various parts of the constitution. [No. 36] Additionally, courts have also considered the nature of the changes proposed by the amendment or revision. [No. 37]

In California, the differentiation between amendments and revisions dates back to the 19th century. The 1879 Constitution precluded revision by amendment, permitting only narrow and specific constitutional amendment by legislative initiative. [No. 38] However, in 1962 the voters approved an amendment which authorized the legislature to propose constitutional revisions just as it proposes amendments. [No. 39] Thus, today constitutional revisions may be proposed by legislative (but not popular) initiative.

(Approaches to Altering State Constitutions)

since these procedures were not followed, the proposition is illegal no matter what the issue is. they actually wrote the proposition so that it would be barred from review by both the governor and the state legislature, which is also illegal under the state constitution. they did not follow the correct procedure in trying to amend the state constitution which i posted above.

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

 

[bodecea]

its not a question of whether i support or do not support gay marriage. i do not support incestuous marriage or polygamy, but if gay marriage is proven to be legal, those groups would have an argument as well for their legal ban. i support the rights of the individual to be the same across the board. that is the underlying case here. you are treating a minority group of people differently under that law. we used to treat blacks, asians and women as lesser than white males under the law. that has since been changed by the courts. progress takes times and we are at that point with the gay community.

this is actually not a federal constitution question. although it has been appealed to the federal level because that is the way our courts system works.

point out the exact law and legal text that defines marriage as between a man and a woman in california. it simply does not exist. i have asked this sefveral times now and you simply ignore the request. i have even posted the legal text stating that it is not defined and you still dont answer me on that.

and it was actually not legal for the group who proposed prop 8 to do so, because it does not follow the law when changing the state constitution:

Amendment by Constitutional Convention.

California

The Constitution of California provides for revision by constitutional convention. [No. 1] The procedure is as follows. Each house of the legislature must vote (by two-thirds) to call a constitutional convention. The electorate must then vote, by a majority, to call the convention. The legislature must provide for the convention within six months after approval by the electorate. Convention delegates must be members of the electorate, and are elected from districts substantially equal in population. [No. 2]

The legislature has issued several proposals calling for a constitutional convention. Such proposals have received the requisite two-thirds vote on only four occasions. [No. 3] Subsequently, on three occasions the ballot measure failed to receive a majority vote by the electorate. [No. 4] In the fourth instance, the measure secured the necessary popular vote, but the legislature then failed to pass enabling legislation, as required by law. [No. 5]

The last constitutional convention was held in 1879. As the above history illustrates, the constitutional convention method has not been a significant tool for changing the California constitution. [No. 6]

Amendment by Legislative Initiative.

California

Article XVIII, section 1 of the state constitution provides for amendment or revision, proposed by a two-thirds vote of both houses and thereafter submitted to the electorate for approval. [No. 16] As regards amendments, each may pertain to only one subject and each must be voted on separately. [No. 17]

Amendment By Popular Initiative.

California.

Adopting the belief of the early twentieth century progressive movement that "all political power is inherent in the people," the state's electorate ratified the initiative process. [No. 27] The initiative process provided a means to institute direct legislation and constitutional amendments while bypassing the legislature. [No. 28] The California state constitution is one of few that allows nearly unchecked constitutional amendment by popular initiative.

Article XVIII, section 3 states that "electors may amend the

Constitution by initiative." [No. 29] Article II, section 8 defines an initiative as the power of the electorate to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution, and to reject or adopt them. [No. 30] Article II also requires the following:

(1) that an initiative to amend the Constitution is proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition with the text of the proposed amendment. The petition must be certified to have been signed by eight percent (8%) of the voters for all candidates for governor in the last gubernatorial election;

(2) that the Secretary of State shall submit the amendments to the voters at the next general election or at a special election called by the governor; and

(3) that the initiative measure may cover only one subject. [No. 31]

Note that the third requirement limits each popular initiative to a single subject.

Also important is the fact that California allows constitutional "amendment," but not "revision," by popular initiative. The legislature, however, has the authority to both amend and revise the state constitution. This difference can be traced to a long standing distinction in California between constitutional revision and amendment. [No. 32]

A revision involves a comprehensive change to the basic governmental plan. Where it appears that a change will substantially alter the basic governmental framework provided in the state constitution (e.g. a change in the role between the judiciary and the rights of criminal defendants), then a constitutional revision, rather than an amendment, must be sought. [No. 33] In contrast, an amendment is somewhat more limited in its purpose and affects fewer constitutional provisions. [No. 34]

To distinguish between revision and amendment, one should make both a quantitative and a qualitative determination [No. 35] For example, proposed alterations are interpreted as calling for constitutional revision when they affect a number of provisions in various parts of the constitution. [No. 36] Additionally, courts have also considered the nature of the changes proposed by the amendment or revision. [No. 37]

In California, the differentiation between amendments and revisions dates back to the 19th century. The 1879 Constitution precluded revision by amendment, permitting only narrow and specific constitutional amendment by legislative initiative. [No. 38] However, in 1962 the voters approved an amendment which authorized the legislature to propose constitutional revisions just as it proposes amendments. [No. 39] Thus, today constitutional revisions may be proposed by legislative (but not popular) initiative.

(Approaches to Altering State Constitutions)

since these procedures were not followed, the proposition is illegal no matter what the issue is. they actually wrote the proposition so that it would be barred from review by both the governor and the state legislature, which is also illegal under the state constitution. they did not follow the correct procedure in trying to amend the state constitution which i posted above.

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

An aside....do you think that the Government will be able to limit the Draft to men anymore? I don't....

 

[Common Sense]

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

exactly, you just admitted that the legal definition in California does not specifically say between a man and woman. its not a word game, it is simply that way the law is written. hence we turn to the courts who have the duty to interpret the laws that are passed.

you dont legislate laws to take rights away. you legislate laws to protect rights.

Judge Reinhardt: "Taking away rights is different from not giving them"

Reinhardt and others focused on the state Supreme Court decision that recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and granted it to same-sex couples "Prop. 8 in effect took away those rights"

Supreme Court decision was as followd:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

this what judges are saying and i guarantee he knows that laws much better than you or I

 

[martybegan]

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

An aside....do you think that the Government will be able to limit the Draft to men anymore? I don't....

There is nothing in the constitution banning this, unless they pass the ERA. Then again, there is nothing preventing congress from changing the law either.

 

[martybegan]

I have tried searching for the wording of the marriage statues and have not turned up the text of any of them, just summaries. I did state that most laws use the term husband and wife. Guess what? Those are taken to mean man and women. The consitution does not say right to bear rifles, it says arms, but rifles are implied as arms. Playing word games doesnt help you prove your point.

As for treating a minority, race is specifically banned as a determining factor in the consitution, sexuality (and sex, except for voting) is not. For example the goverment can limit the draft to men. If sex was considered then this would be unconstitutional, and it is not.

The legal question of if the proposition was legal is much more interesting, and may have greater standing. However, that would be a question for the state court, and the state court ruled the proposition was valid. The Federal case goes into the "right" to same sex marriage, not the legality of the proposition. In the Federal sphere is where I have an issue, as again, the court is being asked to create a right that doesnt exist, and one that if it should exist, should be legislated.

exactly, you just admitted that the legal definition in California does not specifically say between a man and woman. its not a word game, it is simply that way the law is written. hence we turn to the courts who have the duty to interpret the laws that are passed.

you dont legislate laws to take rights away. you legislate laws to protect rights.

Judge Reinhardt: "Taking away rights is different from not giving them"

Reinhardt and others focused on the state Supreme Court decision that recognized that marriage is a fundamental right and granted it to same-sex couples "Prop. 8 in effect took away those rights"

Supreme Court decision was as followd:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

this what judges are saying and i guarantee he knows that laws much better than you or I

If marriage was not limited to just a man and a woman, then why are people doing so much to have it modified to allow for same sex marriage? Your argument is circular. The fact is that before all this if two men went to a clerk to get a marriage license, they were rejected. Then there were laws made to allow for it, which is fine. Then a state wide ban was passed, and the court overruled. The opponents then went to the next level, changing the consitution, which then when passed made same sex marriage illegal. This prevents the courts from arguing on merit, and from anyone legislating. The opponents fought on the basis of improper procedure, again the right thing to do, and lost. They then went to the federal level, going for the creation of a consitutional right to marrying someone with the same plumbing as you. Here is where I think they have no legal standing. Its not that they shouldnt bring the case, its that they should lose.

 

[bodecea]

An aside....do you think that the Government will be able to limit the Draft to men anymore? I don't....

There is nothing in the constitution banning this, unless they pass the ERA. Then again, there is nothing preventing congress from changing the law either.

Let me tell you what will happen two minutes after the Congress reinstates the Draft for men only....someone (probably male) will file a discrimination lawsuit....and will win. There is nothing keeping Congress from including women anymore.

 

[Common Sense]

If marriage was not limited to just a man and a woman, then why are people doing so much to have it modified to allow for same sex marriage? Your argument is circular. The fact is that before all this if two men went to a clerk to get a marriage license, they were rejected. Then there were laws made to allow for it, which is fine. Then a state wide ban was passed, and the court overruled. The opponents then went to the next level, changing the consitution, which then when passed made same sex marriage illegal. This prevents the courts from arguing on merit, and from anyone legislating. The opponents fought on the basis of improper procedure, again the right thing to do, and lost. They then went to the federal level, going for the creation of a consitutional right to marrying someone with the same plumbing as you. Here is where I think they have no legal standing. Its not that they shouldnt bring the case, its that they should lose.

they were rejected based on a statute not a law. this statue was challenged and thus struck down as unconstitutional by the california state supreme court. gay couples were then allowed to be married.

a special interest group brought prop 8 to the the table to fundamentally amend the state constitution.

there was no "law" created to allow gay marriage, there was an statute that was determined to be unconstitutional by the courts. you need to get your facts straight about the case before you pass judgement. no laws were in affect until after prop 8 was passed.

then once you got your facts wrong. two gay couples then filed a brief at the state level in district court. judge walker from the california district court ruled that prop 8 was illegal. the supporters of prop 8 then filed an appeal in federal court.

all of the court rulings so far have gone in favor of allowing gay couples to marry. supporters of gay marriage have not actually had any laws written or changed up to this point. they have simply followed due process and had an unlawful statue overturned based on discrimination.

point me to a law that was passed by gay marriage supporters? show me the actual legal text.

 

[martybegan]

There is nothing in the constitution banning this, unless they pass the ERA. Then again, there is nothing preventing congress from changing the law either.

Let me tell you what will happen two minutes after the Congress reinstates the Draft for men only....someone (probably male) will file a discrimination lawsuit....and will win. There is nothing keeping Congress from including women anymore.

Probably not, as the only protection provided by the consitution for women is the right to vote. Legislation is a different matter entirely, and if the judge takes basic anti-discrimination law into account then the dude may win.

 

[bodecea]

Let me tell you what will happen two minutes after the Congress reinstates the Draft for men only....someone (probably male) will file a discrimination lawsuit....and will win. There is nothing keeping Congress from including women anymore.

Probably not, as the only protection provided by the consitution for women is the right to vote. Legislation is a different matter entirely, and if the judge takes basic anti-discrimination law into account then the dude may win.

Wrong. Women have now proven their capabilities in the military and it would be discriminatory to men to NOT include women in the Draft pool....

 

[Cecilie1200]

today a federal appeals court in San Francisco is set to hear arguments in the case of Proposition 8, one of the most contentious and hard-fought legal battles in the history of marriage equality.

"During the arguments, a three-judge panel will consider two main questions before the court: whether a federal judge erred in ruling the anti-gay marriage initiative unconstitutional, and whether a coalition of Prop. 8 supporters who defended the ballot measure at trial have standing to appeal the case."

ok people, i know im gonna get a lot of gays are immoral and other crap, but trying to be on an reasonably objective level here, what the opinion on whether this prop 8 is constitutional or unconstitutional? or in other words, does limiting gays from marrying constitute discrimination base on sexual orientation?

I assume by "Unconstitutional", you mean the California State Constitution, since the US Constitution doesn't say anything about sexual orientation. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Prop 8 involved an Amendment to the California State Constitution. So the question is, can the Constitution itself be Unconstitutional?

 

[martybegan]

Probably not, as the only protection provided by the consitution for women is the right to vote. Legislation is a different matter entirely, and if the judge takes basic anti-discrimination law into account then the dude may win.

Wrong. Women have now proven their capabilities in the military and it would be discriminatory to men to NOT include women in the Draft pool....

Thats your opinion. however the consitution allows the draft to be men only.

 

[JenT]

Feeling the hate of Prop*8

and like it says, Bruce Curtis reported it in the Bay News

cause we don't see enough lying rightwingnut blogs, eh?

name calling. Such intelligent response

 

[JenT]

Probably not, as the only protection provided by the consitution for women is the right to vote. Legislation is a different matter entirely, and if the judge takes basic anti-discrimination law into account then the dude may win.

Wrong. Women have now proven their capabilities in the military and it would be discriminatory to men to NOT include women in the Draft pool....

uh huh

whether we're capable or not, the mere fact that our appearance betrays us as female would invite challenge on the battlefield.

I have a lot of admiration for women like Molly Pitcher, over the ages so many women have proved to be courageous and valuable on the battlefield. But our culture's willingness to be blinded to the obvious, (also found at airport screenings), will play a part in our downfall.