Is it too easy to amend California's Constitution?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Putting aside the gay marriage initiative in California....

Opinion
It's too easy to amend California's Constitution
The Proposition 8 battle showed that the process to get an initiative amendment on the state ballot should be more rigorous.
By Edward L. Lascher Jr., Floyd F. Feeney and Tim Hodson
February 4, 2009

- what do you think?

 

[Pyrite]

I'm not from California, but it seems to me that the whole point of a constitution is that it's more solid than a simple law. It should take a supermajority to change the constitution.

Now the hilarious question would be, would such a change be a revision, requiring only 50%+1 of voters?

 

[Oddball]

They could change their constitution so that mob rule doesn't change the constitution.

But what mechanism would be left in place for the voters to push back against the judicial oligarchy??

 

[Pyrite]

They could change their constitution so that mob rule doesn't change the constitution.

But what mechanism would be left in place for the voters to push back against the judicial oligarchy??

If they don't want equality under the law, they can vote by supermajority to write equality out of their constitution. They wouldn't be the first state that has done so.

I find it disgusting, but it is their democratic right.

 

[Oddball]

If they don't want equality under the law, they can vote by supermajority to write equality out of their constitution. They wouldn't be the first state that has done so.

I find it disgusting, but it is their democratic right.

"Equality under the law" is a red herring in this context.

The criteria of being issued a marriage license is based upon objectively identifiable gender, not by behavior.

What I find disgusting is the state meddling in the marriage business in any case.

 

[Pyrite]

"Equality under the law" is a red herring in this context.

The criteria of being issued a marriage license is based upon objectively identifiable gender, not by behavior.

What I find disgusting is the state meddling in the marriage business in any case.

Skin color is also objectively identifiable. That doesn't mean that discriminating based on it is legally permissible in a system with equality under the law.

 

[Oddball]

Skin color is also objectively identifiable. That doesn't mean that discriminating based on it is legally permissible in a system with equality under the law.

Interesting you should bring that up....Licensing was used in Jim Crow states to deny inter-ethnic marriage, and persecute those who wished to marry between the ethnicities.

So, why is it gays would want to involve themselves with a vestige of Jim Crow, only to turn around and hurl the "bigot" epithet when they don't get what they want??

The thing about irony is that it's sooooo....well....ironic.

 

[Pyrite]

Skin color is also objectively identifiable. That doesn't mean that discriminating based on it is legally permissible in a system with equality under the law.

Interesting you should bring that up....Licensing was used in Jim Crow states to deny inter-ethnic marriage, and persecute those who wished to marry between the ethnicities.

So, why is it gays would want to involve themselves with a vestige of Jim Crow, only to turn around and hurl the "bigot" epithet when they don't get what they want??

The thing about irony is that it's sooooo....well....ironic.

Aaand you've lost me.

Let me try to lay this out:
There used to be laws against blacks marrying whites.
These laws were eventually struck down as unconstitutional.
There are currently laws against men marrying other men. (and women marrying other women. Don't want to leave anyone out.)
Some people are trying to get these laws struck down as unconstitutional.

I don't see the irony here. What is this "vestige of Jim Crow" gays are trying to involve themselves with?

 

[Oddball]

Aaand you've lost me.

Let me try to lay this out:
There used to be laws against blacks marrying whites.
These laws were eventually struck down as unconstitutional.
There are currently laws against men marrying other men. (and women marrying other women. Don't want to leave anyone out.)
Some people are trying to get these laws struck down as unconstitutional.

I don't see the irony here. What is this "vestige of Jim Crow" gays are trying to involve themselves with?

The vestige of Jim Crow is the state license itself.

The laws against denying couples of different ethnicities were struck down....The bad news is that the SCOTUS case didn't call the legitimacy of licensing itself into question.

That said, the case only ruled in the case of men and women marrying, insofar as their ethnicities were concerned, not because of any sexual behavior...A gay man can still marry a straight woman, or you make up your own combination.

Mind you, I see no place for any state involvement or granting of permission of statutory marriages in any case. That's something best left to the churches, the common law, and individuals themselves.

 

[catzmeow]

I think that it is too easy to amend the constitutions of SEVERAL states, which has led to entirely inappropriate amendments in my state (Florida). For instance, in our state, we have a constitutional amendment banning the caging of pregnant pigs. A huge issue, you might imagine, in Florida.

 

[Pyrite]

Aaand you've lost me.

Let me try to lay this out:
There used to be laws against blacks marrying whites.
These laws were eventually struck down as unconstitutional.
There are currently laws against men marrying other men. (and women marrying other women. Don't want to leave anyone out.)
Some people are trying to get these laws struck down as unconstitutional.

I don't see the irony here. What is this "vestige of Jim Crow" gays are trying to involve themselves with?

The vestige of Jim Crow is the state license itself.

The laws against denying couples of different ethnicities were struck down....The bad news is that the SCOTUS case didn't call the legitimacy of licensing itself into question.
(...)
Mind you, I see no place for any state involvement or granting of permission of statutory marriages in any case. That's something best left to the churches, the common law, and individuals themselves.

Well, that's a valid approach, but I would say at least that as long as the licenses exist, they should be applied equally.

That said, the case only ruled in the case of men and women marrying, insofar as their ethnicities were concerned, not because of any sexual behavior...A gay man can still marry a straight woman, or you make up your own combination.

Yes, but the principles upon which the case was based apply to this also. Before the case, a black man was still free to marry a black woman, ect. too.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Since the courts held 13,000 same sex couples who had marriage licenses can't have them taken away, could an amendment to the State Constitution rescind an earlier amendment if the Constution were first amended so as to require a supermajority to amend the Constitution? Would that rescinding amendment require a supermajority, in your world?

In other words, would you require a supermajority to rescind the amendment which passed with a simple majority?

Oh, the irony.

 

[Oddball]

Well, that's a valid approach, but I would say at least that as long as the licenses exist, they should be applied equally.

And they are....Any man and woman can marry, no matter their sexual behavior. While I'm not going to invoke the red herrings of bestiality or pedophilia her, because there's the glaring issue of consent, your idea of "equality" could also be interpreted to extend to consenting adults who wish to engage in polygamy....What of their right to "equal treatement"??

Yes, but the principles upon which the case was based apply to this also. Before the case, a black man was still free to marry a black woman, ect. too.

The principles don't apply at all because we're talking about objectively qualifiable differences in gender and ethnicity, not people equating their behavior with their identities.

 

[Pyrite]

Well, that's a valid approach, but I would say at least that as long as the licenses exist, they should be applied equally.

And they are....Any man and woman can marry, no matter their sexual behavior.

And before anti-miscegenation laws, any black man could marry any black woman, no matter their sexual behavior.

While I'm not going to invoke the red herrings of bestiality or pedophilia her, because there's the glaring issue of consent, your idea of "equality" could also be interpreted to extend to consenting adults who wish to engage in polygamy....What of their right to "equal treatement"??

Things get a lot more complex when you involve more than two people, but I honestly have no objection to polyamorous relationships, or their codification in law, so long as we can ensure that no one is being treated as chattel.

The principles don't apply at all because we're talking about objectively qualifiable differences in gender and ethnicity, not people equating their behavior with their identities.

Maybe you are. I'm not.

 

[Oddball]

Things get a lot more complex when you involve more than two people, but I honestly have no objection to polyamorous relationships, or their codification in law, so long as we can ensure that no one is being treated as chattel.

We're already being treated as chattel by -in most states- being forced to get state permission to be married.

The person getting the privilege is always beholden to the one granting it.

Maybe you are. I'm not.

Behavior is not an identity....Compulsions are not identities.

 

[Pyrite]

Things get a lot more complex when you involve more than two people, but I honestly have no objection to polyamorous relationships, or their codification in law, so long as we can ensure that no one is being treated as chattel.

We're already being treated as chattel by -in most states- being forced to get state permission to be married.

The person getting the privilege is always beholden to the one granting it.

See, I prefer to see it as a right rather than as a privilege. It's the people trying to make marriage discriminatory who see it as a privilege.

Behavior is not an identity....Compulsions are not identities.

I really don't get what you're trying to say here.

behavior, compulsions, and identity are irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Oddball]

See, I prefer to see it as a right rather than as a privilege. It's the people trying to make marriage discriminatory who see it as a privilege.

Please, don't project motivations...It doesn't work on me.

In it's proper legal definition, a license is one of two things:

1) Permission to use another's property, under clearly defined conditions (think software and DVDs).

2) Permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal to do in absence of the license (think occupational licensing).​

Period.....The nature of permission has nothing to do with me.

I really don't get what you're trying to say here.

behavior, compulsions, and identity are irrelevant to my argument.

Sexual acts are behaviors....They're not who someone is, but what they do....Again, that's not just my opinion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think that it is too easy to amend the constitutions of SEVERAL states, which has led to entirely inappropriate amendments in my state (Florida). For instance, in our state, we have a constitutional amendment banning the caging of pregnant pigs. A huge issue, you might imagine, in Florida.

So there is an amendment to the Florida State Constitution banning the caging of Oprah and Limbaugh?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Putting aside the gay marriage initiative in California....

Opinion
It's too easy to amend California's Constitution
The Proposition 8 battle showed that the process to get an initiative amendment on the state ballot should be more rigorous.
By Edward L. Lascher Jr., Floyd F. Feeney and Tim Hodson
February 4, 2009

- what do you think?

California long ago patterned itself after the European social democracies... which is one of the reasons why California's Constitution is a joke... anyone with a pad of paper and time to stand at the grocery store can change the damn thing.

It's part and parcel of the reason why leftists are to be ignored...

(Now keep in mind that the person presently lamenting this 'crisis' is a leftist and would do the same damn thing to the Federal government, IF SHE COULD... )

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Putting aside the gay marriage initiative in California....

Opinion
It's too easy to amend California's Constitution
The Proposition 8 battle showed that the process to get an initiative amendment on the state ballot should be more rigorous.
By Edward L. Lascher Jr., Floyd F. Feeney and Tim Hodson
February 4, 2009

- what do you think?

Weren't you and all the left bots all crying that we needed MORE democracy not less?