[olePigeon]

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcali...y/1403231.html

Good! He also has the right attitude, too. He may personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he's not going to impress his will on other people. Prop 8 should be overturned.

[Chongo]

Prop 8 amended the California Constitution. I don't believe the California Supreme Court can rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional. The CSC overturned an initiative that was a law change.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Prop 8 amended the California Constitution. I don't believe the California Supreme Court can rule a Constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

Correct.

But there is a debate right now whether Prop 8 "amended" or "revised" the California Constitution. That's the legal issue. Apparently under California state law, amendments can be voted on by a simple majority of the people, but a revision needs to go to the legislature first.

[RAILhead]

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

[Zeeb]

If the manner in which this amendment passed was not legal, why should it stand?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

How would allowing same sex marriage change your opinion of the matter? You're still going to disagree with it. You're still not going allow them to join your non-profit organization. You're still not going to marry them within your non-profit organization. What exactly will force you to change?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

Ahhhh democracy: where the Tyranny of the Majority is a Bad Thing® when it comes to your money, but a great thing when it comes to your religion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

98% of the state voted for Prop 8?

[RAILhead]

If it's put up for a vote, and The People decide -- deal with it. THAT'S THE PROCESS. The PEOPLE VOTED.

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

THAT'S THE PROCESS.

When did the ability to seek redress in court, and said court's authority to adjudicate, get tossed out of the process?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

If it's put up for a vote, and The People decide -- deal with it. THAT'S THE PROCESS. The PEOPLE VOTED.

Just because a few people voted for something doesn't mean it should become law. Lots of people favored segregation, but it was unconstitutional.

However, this appears to be a legally approved constitutional amendment, so it is constitutional. I vehemently disagree with it, but I think overturning it in court would not be right. It should be put back up for a vote and overturned the proper way.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

When did the ability to seek redress in court, and said court's authority to adjudicate, get tossed out of the process?

Don't hit him with more questions just yet. I'm still waiting with Wiskedjak to find where he gets the figure that 98% of the population of California were in favor of Proposition 8.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by subego 

When did the ability to seek redress in court, and said court's authority to adjudicate, get tossed out of the process?

When it disagrees with certain religious views.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Just because a few people voted for something doesn't mean it should become law. Lots of people favored segregation, but it was unconstitutional.

However, this appears to be a legally approved constitutional amendment, so it is constitutional. I vehemently disagree with it, but I think overturning it in court would not be right. It should be put back up for a vote and overturned the proper way.

I am surprised that is only required 51% of the vote and not 75%.

[Big Mac]

Schwarzenegger has no credibility on the issue. Two bills from the legislature overturning Prop 22 (the previous marriage proposition) came to his desk, and he vetoed them, saying he did not want to subvert the clear will of the people expressed by 2000's Prop 22 vote. Now, after the will of California voters has been expressed for a second time - and with a similar margin of victory of that of Barack Obama - Schwarzengger wants the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the voters. No credibility.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I am surprised that is only required 51% of the vote and not 75%.

I agree, that's completely busted. A simple popular majority shouldn't be enough to amend the constitution.

And, BTW, that is a conservative position to take.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Schwarzenegger has no credibility on the issue. Two bills from the legislature overturning Prop 22 (the previous marriage proposition) came to his desk, and he vetoed them, saying he did not want to subvert the clear will of the people expressed by 2000's Prop 22 vote. Now, after the will of California voters has been expressed for a second time - and with a similar margin of victory of that of Barack Obama - Schwarzengger wants the Supreme Court to overturn the will of the voters. No credibility.

I disagree. Schwarzenegger didn't think the legislature had the authority to overturn laws passed by the people, but he does think the courts have the authority to overturn any laws. It's only inconsistent if you believe there's no difference between the courts and the legislature, which any third-grader could tell you is not the case.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I am surprised that is only required 51% of the vote and not 75%.

Isn't that interesting?

What saves states from being ruled by the tyranny of the majority is federalism. Federal law supersedes state law, so states cannot grant fewer rights under its constitution than under the federal constitution.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree, that's completely busted. A simple popular majority shouldn't be enough to amend the constitution.

And, BTW, that is a conservative position to take.

What is? Thinking that it should be 75%?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Isn't that interesting?

What saves states from being ruled by the tyranny of the majority is federalism. Federal law supersedes state law, so states cannot grant fewer rights under its constitution than under the federal constitution.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, this isn't precisely true.

With the Bill of Rights for example, these needed to be incorporated to the states under the 14th amendment by a SCOTUS decision.

As of yet, they haven't all been incorporated. The 2nd being the most obvious.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

If it's put up for a vote, and The People decide -- deal with it. THAT'S THE PROCESS. The PEOPLE VOTED.

Soooo ... just to clarify your earlier statement: 98% of the state voted for Prop 8?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree. Schwarzenegger didn't think the legislature had the authority to overturn laws passed by the people, but he does think the courts have the authority to overturn any laws. It's only inconsistent if you believe there's no difference between the courts and the legislature, which any third-grader could tell you is not the case.

The state judiciary does not have the authority to overturn state constitutional amendments. Thanks for the gratuitous third-grader remark, btw.

[RAILhead]

Where did I say 98% of the people in Cali voted for it? I didn't. Regardless, only 2% of the population considers themselves homosexual, while 98% doesn't -- that's what I was referring to.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree. Schwarzenegger didn't think the legislature had the authority to overturn laws passed by the people, but he does think the courts have the authority to overturn any laws. It's only inconsistent if you believe there's no difference between the courts and the legislature, which any third-grader could tell you is not the case.

In Arizona, they don't. They can't repeal anything passed by the initiative/referendum process or amend "unless the amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes
and nays, vote to amend such measure."

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

And not that long ago, the majority of people thought women shouldn't be able to vote, and blacks were just property, and whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, and on and on the list goes. Get over it, things change.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Where did I say 98% of the people in Cali voted for it? I didn't. Regardless, only 2% of the population considers themselves homosexual, while 98% doesn't -- that's what I was referring to.

Given the results of the vote, it's clear that significantly more than 2% of the state's population wanted homosexuals to have the same rights as everybody else. Your original post was quite clearly trying to imply that 98% of the population supported Prop 8.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The state judiciary does not have the authority to overturn state constitutional amendments.

Of course it does. If something about the amendment process was improper (for example, if this is the kind of amendment that can't be passed by popular vote), who do you think is supposed to stop it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Given the results of the vote, it's clear that significantly more than 2% of the state's population wanted homosexuals to have the same rights as everybody else. Your original post was quite clearly trying to imply that 98% of the population supported Prop 8.

I thought he was implying only 2% of the population would be directly affected by the law.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought he was implying only 2% of the population would be directly affected by the law.

Clearly ...

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

So since 2% of the population didn't get their way, they're going to force everyone else to change their opinions and not be satisfied with The Will Of The People?

This statement is not talking about who will be affected, it's talking about who opposed Prop 8. If it's talking about people affected by Prop 8, then it's trying to suggest that the vast majority of the people who voted against Prop 8 didn't really oppose it because they weren't affected by it.

[lpkmckenna]

it's nice to see a Republican that doesn't suck up to the social conservatives. McCain used to be like that. If he still was, he'd probably have won.

[besson3c]

Why was a vote cast if it was potentially going to be meaningless anyway? Seems like a waste of time to me...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Where did I say 98% of the people in Cali voted for it? I didn't. Regardless, only 2% of the population considers themselves homosexual, while 98% doesn't -- that's what I was referring to.

Yes, but your statement assumes that only homosexuals in California would have voted against Prop 8. Yet, based on the percentage of votes cast, more than 2% of the population voted against it which means there are a lot of non-homosexuals who were opposed to it. Thus, your original statement that "2% of the population didn't get their way" is wrong. Way more than 2% of the population were opposed to Prop 8 which means way more than just the homosexual citizens of California are opposed to it. Your original statement was wrong in every conceivable way so just accept it that you were wrong.

[dcmacdaddy]

I posted this question in the "gays opposed to democracy" thread but never got a reply so I thought I would post it here as this thread seems to be the more active one now on this topic. (Mods, forgive the cross-posting. If you want me to delete this let me know and I will.)

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Can anyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage articulate how government recognition of the legal union between two individuals of the same sex will be detrimental to society?
What will happen after recognition of same-sex marriages takes place that is so horrible and terrible for society as a whole that the government must not ever allow such a thing (recognition of same-sex marriages) to happen?


For example, we know that lowering the driving age to 12 would lead to a much higher rate of car accidents because of the physical and mental immaturity of 12-year-olds. (They are both too small and have insufficiently developed cognition to handle the rigors of driving a car.) Are there similar negative repercussions that would result from allowing same-sex couple to marry? If so, what are they?

[olePigeon]

I think the Mormon Church's tax exemption status should be revoked for lobbying $20 million to get Proposition 8 passed, then Prop 8 should be removed for violating the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

[Buckaroo]

It's time for another Governor recall election.

The will of the people have spoken, and he does not want to listen.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

It's time for another Governor recall election.

The will of the people have spoken, and he does not want to listen.

I tend to agree, although the will of the people in this case leads me to an even more cynical view of humanity.

My views on economics and foreign policy and all of that tend to be complicated, but my views on these social issues are quite simple: I don't give a flying **** what a politician thinks is moral, we aren't paying them to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf, especially since they have absolutely no discernible qualifications to be coming to conclusions over religious issues such as marriage. Let the church sort this out.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

It's time for another Governor recall election.

The will of the people have spoken, and he does not want to listen.

And, as is often the case, the people are wrong. Just like they were in other issues in the past, this will be overturned, and your children won't become gay, and neither will you, and you'll have to find some other silly issue to make hay over, while ignoring the really important issues this country doesn't want to address. The sky may be falling, but it isn't because of less than 5% of the population wanting to get married.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I tend to agree, although the will of the people in this case leads me to an even more cynical view of humanity.

My views on economics and foreign policy and all of that tend to be complicated, but my views on these social issues are quite simple: I don't give a flying **** what a politician thinks is moral, we aren't paying them to make these sorts of decisions on our behalf, especially since they have absolutely no discernible qualifications to be coming to conclusions over religious issues such as marriage. Let the church sort this out.

This is not a church issue, and I'm surprised you'd think so. This is an issue of the state recognizing unions between consenting adults. No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

This is not a church issue, and I'm surprised you'd think so. This is an issue of the state recognizing unions between consenting adults. No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.

Yes it is, but the most common justification for preventing these marriages involves the definition of marriage, which is a purely religious institutional thing.

Letting politicians be in charge of these sorts of moral issues is like letting a 350 pound person be in charge of exercise and diet.

.... Or something... I wish I was better at coming up with witty and timely analogies!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes it is, but the most common justification for preventing these marriages involves the definition of marriage, which is a purely religious institutional thing.

Letting politicians be in charge of these sorts of moral issues is like letting a 350 pound person be in charge of exercise and diet.

.... Or something... I wish I was better at coming up with witty and timely analogies!

Not letting a homosexual union being called a marriage is just a smokescreen for preventing whatever you wish to call a homosexual union. Most of the states which have banned gay marriage have also banned civil unions. No one is saying that Schwarzenneger should be in charge of this; he's just stating his opinion, like many others have. This will ultimately be decided by the courts, which will eventually recognize the wasted effort of the opposition, just like they have done in the past. Focus on the Family is now laying off staff, because they spent so much money fighting this that they're short. Just think how much real christian effort they could have shown towards the less fortunate if they had spent that money more wisely, instead of worrying about a few homosexual couples. As usual, emotions cloud judgement, and few see that, plodding along in their stupidity.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

This is not a church issue, and I'm surprised you'd think so. This is an issue of the state recognizing unions between consenting adults. No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.

Absolutely correct. I don't think anyone who is in favor of gay marriages wants to force religions to alter their beliefs so as to approve gay marriages. Personally, I would be totally opposed to that as I think government shouldn't have any say in how religions operate. All I care about is how government recognizes its citizens and to me government that recognizes one group of citizens but not another identical group of citizens is wrong.

(And when I say identical I mean just that. To me, the government recognizing a couple's marriage is doing so in the context of their legal rights as a joined unit. Whether that unit is male/female, male/male, or female/female is irrelevant as long as the two parties are adults and willingly consent to the union. I think all three of those possible unions are identical in the context of legal rights as a joined unit.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No one is going to force any particular church to marry people that the church doesn't want to.

They said that about the situation in the UK. Now look.

http://www.stonewallcymru.org.uk/cym...paigns/743.asp

Peers voted by 168 votes to 122 in support of regulations, part of the new Equality Act, which were introduced on 30 April. They will make it unlawful to discriminate against lesbian and gay people in the provision of services ranging from healthcare to hotel rooms.

That includes church weddings.

(As far as I'm concerned, I continue to treat gays equally - with exactly the same contempt I show for straight folks - and continue to reserve the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason I so choose (boobs not large enough, boobs too saggy, ugly face, crap hair, wearing short-sleeved shirts with ties, member of the human race, etc. etc..).)

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I posted this question in the "gays opposed to democracy" thread but never got a reply so I thought I would post it here as this thread seems to be the more active one now on this topic. (Mods, forgive the cross-posting. If you want me to delete this let me know and I will.)

You're an optimist if you ever think you'll get an honest answe to those questions.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

They said that about the situation in the UK. Now look.

http://www.stonewallcymru.org.uk/cym...paigns/743.asp

My father once got mugged, so now I know all people are muggers.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

My father once got mugged, so now I know all people are muggers.

If you want to use this analogy, the assertion Doofy was responding to was "there is no possibility you will be mugged".

[Monique]

Let me see religious fanatics are against monogamy, spouses that would be able to be involved in the health care of their partners, love, respect, understanding, etc.

It is so sad that people are the most ignorant and discrimanatory against others are so called Christians.

My sister knew those 2 women who were gays are very happy to be together and they formed a very solid union.

On the other hand one ex-friend of mine told me that gays are unhappy people and he said that he wanted to prevent people like that to be unhappy; such a stupid man.