CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: thraashman
The biggest reason why Prop 8 should be illegal is the basic concept behind it. You're allowing a majority of people to vote on an issue that only affects a minority. There is ZERO, none, no, nada, zip, zilch affect on straight marriage if you allow gay marriage. But disallowing gay marriage defies the concept of equal right for all in this nation by letting 100% of the population create a law that doesn't affect 90% at all but seriously negatively affects 10%.

What would happen if a law was put on the ballot requiring all citizens to openly practice a religion of some sort. Well there's about a 12% atheist/non-religious population in this nation and about a 78% being Christian with 62% being members of a church. Well what if that 62% voted this on the ballot and now that 12% was to be forced to adhere to an unfair practice? I'm sure you'd all realize that this is in direct violation of the 1st amendment. But many of you think a majority rule should allow that because the people voted for it.

Well, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Marriage is a privilege, banning a US citizen the privilege of marriage is in direct violation of the 14th amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT!

Well you have to give people the ability to make the society that they want. The problem with prop 8 is that they are attacking a minority's fundamental rights with only 52% of the vote. I mean technically we could amend the US Constitution to say "black people are re-enslaved", but you just need overwhelming support from the country to do it.

The CSC threw out a proposition that banned gay marriage in California because it was unconstitutional. Then the people behind it effectively came back with the exact same law, but just relabeled it an 'amendment', and now it's supposed to be okay? It's still the same bare majority trampling on a minority.

The California Constitution needs to be amended to remove how easy it is to amend. (har har) The federal constitution has been amended 20 odd times in 200 years, the California Constitution has been amended 400 times in half that time.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: thraashman
The biggest reason why Prop 8 should be illegal is the basic concept behind it. You're allowing a majority of people to vote on an issue that only affects a minority. There is ZERO, none, no, nada, zip, zilch affect on straight marriage if you allow gay marriage. But disallowing gay marriage defies the concept of equal right for all in this nation by letting 100% of the population create a law that doesn't affect 90% at all but seriously negatively affects 10%.

What would happen if a law was put on the ballot requiring all citizens to openly practice a religion of some sort. Well there's about a 12% atheist/non-religious population in this nation and about a 78% being Christian with 62% being members of a church. Well what if that 62% voted this on the ballot and now that 12% was to be forced to adhere to an unfair practice? I'm sure you'd all realize that this is in direct violation of the 1st amendment. But many of you think a majority rule should allow that because the people voted for it.

Well, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Marriage is a privilege, banning a US citizen the privilege of marriage is in direct violation of the 14th amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT!

Well you have to give people the ability to make the society that they want. The problem with prop 8 is that they are attacking a minority's fundamental rights with only 52% of the vote. I mean technically we could amend the US Constitution to say "black people are re-enslaved", but you just need overwhelming support from the country to do it.

The CSC threw out a proposition that banned gay marriage in California because it was unconstitutional. Then the people behind it effectively came back with the exact same law, but just relabeled it an 'amendment', and now it's supposed to be okay? It's still the same bare majority trampling on a minority.

The California Constitution needs to be amended to remove how easy it is to amend. (har har) The federal constitution has been amended 20 odd times in 200 years, the California Constitution has been amended 400 times in half that time.

I don't know, I think we could easily solve the problem by applying the same template to any attempt to modify our state constitution:

1.) Does this amendment infringe upon the rights of others, or some limited group?
2.) Does this amendment discriminate against a group of people in some way?
3.) Does this amendment attempt to eliminate the basic protections and protection of civil liberties inherent in the constitution or attempt to bypass them in some way?

Assuming the answer is "no" to all of these, then there's no reason an amendment should be rejected outright. Perhaps it would be best to subject all future ballot initiatives to this test BEFORE allowing the people to vote on it? That would prevent the furor over the "people's will being ignored" etc.

Christ, the state should pay ME for solving all of THEIR problems.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: thraashman
The biggest reason why Prop 8 should be illegal is the basic concept behind it. You're allowing a majority of people to vote on an issue that only affects a minority. There is ZERO, none, no, nada, zip, zilch affect on straight marriage if you allow gay marriage. But disallowing gay marriage defies the concept of equal right for all in this nation by letting 100% of the population create a law that doesn't affect 90% at all but seriously negatively affects 10%.

What would happen if a law was put on the ballot requiring all citizens to openly practice a religion of some sort. Well there's about a 12% atheist/non-religious population in this nation and about a 78% being Christian with 62% being members of a church. Well what if that 62% voted this on the ballot and now that 12% was to be forced to adhere to an unfair practice? I'm sure you'd all realize that this is in direct violation of the 1st amendment. But many of you think a majority rule should allow that because the people voted for it.

Well, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Marriage is a privilege, banning a US citizen the privilege of marriage is in direct violation of the 14th amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT!

Well you have to give people the ability to make the society that they want. The problem with prop 8 is that they are attacking a minority's fundamental rights with only 52% of the vote. I mean technically we could amend the US Constitution to say "black people are re-enslaved", but you just need overwhelming support from the country to do it.

The CSC threw out a proposition that banned gay marriage in California because it was unconstitutional. Then the people behind it effectively came back with the exact same law, but just relabeled it an 'amendment', and now it's supposed to be okay? It's still the same bare majority trampling on a minority.

The California Constitution needs to be amended to remove how easy it is to amend. (har har) The federal constitution has been amended 20 odd times in 200 years, the California Constitution has been amended 400 times in half that time.

I don't know, I think we could easily solve the problem by applying the same template to any attempt to modify our state constitution:

1.) Does this amendment infringe upon the rights of others, or some limited group?
2.) Does this amendment discriminate against a group of people in some way?
3.) Does this amendment attempt to eliminate the basic protections and protection of civil liberties inherent in the constitution or attempt to bypass them in some way?

Assuming the answer is "no" to all of these, then there's no reason an amendment should be rejected outright. Perhaps it would be best to subject all future ballot initiatives to this test BEFORE allowing the people to vote on it? That would prevent the furor over the "people's will being ignored" etc.

Christ, the state should pay ME for solving all of THEIR problems.

so what exactly did you solve?
NOTHING!!
First of all a Proposition is NOT an amendment!!
Plus the interpretation of your so called guidelines is very arguable as was noted if you watched the Cal Supreme cpourt yesterday....

For example
define infringe.....
define rights.....
define discriminate...
define basic protection.....
define inherent.......


There are clear cut definitions and you can spout Webster`s dictionary all you want that does not mean that legally the definitions are clear cut...

Peace!!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
First of all a Proposition is NOT an amendment!!

Prop 8 is a proposition that amends the CA constitution.

As has been explained repeatedly, there are two types of amendments, one for 'minor' chages requiring a majority vote, the other for core changes requiring a super-majority.

For whatever reason, news reports say the court is sounding like they're going to file gay marriage under the 'minor change' category - wrongly, in my opinion and the CA AG's.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

I don't know, I think we could easily solve the problem by applying the same template to any attempt to modify our state constitution:

1.) Does this amendment infringe upon the rights of others, or some limited group?
2.) Does this amendment discriminate against a group of people in some way?
3.) Does this amendment attempt to eliminate the basic protections and protection of civil liberties inherent in the constitution or attempt to bypass them in some way?

Assuming the answer is "no" to all of these, then there's no reason an amendment should be rejected outright. Perhaps it would be best to subject all future ballot initiatives to this test BEFORE allowing the people to vote on it? That would prevent the furor over the "people's will being ignored" etc.

Christ, the state should pay ME for solving all of THEIR problems.

Well that's not really how our courts work. They don't rule on possible laws, they rule on real laws. If they ruled on every possible proposition that went out, every possible law, the system would be completely overwhelmed.

As for how the state constitution can be, or any constitution for that matter, if enough people support changing it to be racist/homophobic/sexist/whatever, you can change it to that totally legally. The thing is that Constitutions are by design supposed to be more difficult to change than a simple law is. That's why having the same standard for Constitutional amendments (simple majority) and laws is incredibly stupid.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

I don't know, I think we could easily solve the problem by applying the same template to any attempt to modify our state constitution:

1.) Does this amendment infringe upon the rights of others, or some limited group?
2.) Does this amendment discriminate against a group of people in some way?
3.) Does this amendment attempt to eliminate the basic protections and protection of civil liberties inherent in the constitution or attempt to bypass them in some way?

Assuming the answer is "no" to all of these, then there's no reason an amendment should be rejected outright. Perhaps it would be best to subject all future ballot initiatives to this test BEFORE allowing the people to vote on it? That would prevent the furor over the "people's will being ignored" etc.

Christ, the state should pay ME for solving all of THEIR problems.

Well that's not really how our courts work. They don't rule on possible laws, they rule on real laws. If they ruled on every possible proposition that went out, every possible law, the system would be completely overwhelmed.

As for how the state constitution can be, or any constitution for that matter, if enough people support changing it to be racist/homophobic/sexist/whatever, you can change it to that totally legally. The thing is that Constitutions are by design supposed to be more difficult to change than a simple law is. That's why having the same standard for Constitutional amendments (simple majority) and laws is incredibly stupid.

They may not work that way, but I'm suggesting they should work that way, at least for ballot initiatives that attempt to amend the constitution. (I'm not implying ALL laws here) We're only talking every 2 years, right? Simply schedule some court time for a pre-ballot constitutional review wherein the CA SC runs each ballot initiative through my earlier "lemon test." If it passes constitutional muster, off it goes and onto the ballot it is.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: thraashman
The biggest reason why Prop 8 should be illegal is the basic concept behind it. You're allowing a majority of people to vote on an issue that only affects a minority. There is ZERO, none, no, nada, zip, zilch affect on straight marriage if you allow gay marriage. But disallowing gay marriage defies the concept of equal right for all in this nation by letting 100% of the population create a law that doesn't affect 90% at all but seriously negatively affects 10%.

What would happen if a law was put on the ballot requiring all citizens to openly practice a religion of some sort. Well there's about a 12% atheist/non-religious population in this nation and about a 78% being Christian with 62% being members of a church. Well what if that 62% voted this on the ballot and now that 12% was to be forced to adhere to an unfair practice? I'm sure you'd all realize that this is in direct violation of the 1st amendment. But many of you think a majority rule should allow that because the people voted for it.

Well, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Marriage is a privilege, banning a US citizen the privilege of marriage is in direct violation of the 14th amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT!

Well you have to give people the ability to make the society that they want. The problem with prop 8 is that they are attacking a minority's fundamental rights with only 52% of the vote. I mean technically we could amend the US Constitution to say "black people are re-enslaved", but you just need overwhelming support from the country to do it.

The CSC threw out a proposition that banned gay marriage in California because it was unconstitutional. Then the people behind it effectively came back with the exact same law, but just relabeled it an 'amendment', and now it's supposed to be okay? It's still the same bare majority trampling on a minority.

The California Constitution needs to be amended to remove how easy it is to amend. (har har) The federal constitution has been amended 20 odd times in 200 years, the California Constitution has been amended 400 times in half that time.

I don't know, I think we could easily solve the problem by applying the same template to any attempt to modify our state constitution:

1.) Does this amendment infringe upon the rights of others, or some limited group?
2.) Does this amendment discriminate against a group of people in some way?
3.) Does this amendment attempt to eliminate the basic protections and protection of civil liberties inherent in the constitution or attempt to bypass them in some way?

Assuming the answer is "no" to all of these, then there's no reason an amendment should be rejected outright. Perhaps it would be best to subject all future ballot initiatives to this test BEFORE allowing the people to vote on it? That would prevent the furor over the "people's will being ignored" etc.

Christ, the state should pay ME for solving all of THEIR problems.

so what exactly did you solve?
NOTHING!!
First of all a Proposition is NOT an amendment!!
Plus the interpretation of your so called guidelines is very arguable as was noted if you watched the Cal Supreme cpourt yesterday....

For example
define infringe.....
define rights.....
define discriminate...
define basic protection.....
define inherent.......


There are clear cut definitions and you can spout Webster`s dictionary all you want that does not mean that legally the definitions are clear cut...

Peace!!

You're high, dude. Proposition 8 is precisely that, a constitutional amendment. You should immediately go familiarize yourself with the text of Prop 8. Peace out.

EDIT: And by the way, I'm not going to take your bait, which amounts to the equivalent of "define what the word "is" is." While it's incredibly hilarious within the context of Clinton's blow job, and the subsequent brouhaha, words are quite easily defined, in particular the words I chose.

Playing dumb semantics games is beyond lame.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
First of all a Proposition is NOT an amendment!!

Prop 8 is a proposition that amends the CA constitution.

As has been explained repeatedly, there are two types of amendments, one for 'minor' chages requiring a majority vote, the other for core changes requiring a super-majority.

For whatever reason, news reports say the court is sounding like they're going to file gay marriage under the 'minor change' category - wrongly, in my opinion and the CA AG's.

This is exactly in accordance with legal opinion I have read on the subject, that the case that it's a major revision is technically weak.

The only thing I can see if it goes that way is to challenge the amendment in federal court as a violation of the 14th.