Calif state Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriages

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by revelated

Geez, here we go again.

I've got homework for you. Point me to a piece of CA law that explicitly...read that again...explicitly says that "marriage is your right" or words to that effect. Not inferences. EXACT language.

It doesn't have to, the SC's interpretation says so:

On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22)

The SC's job is to interpret. If you don't like that, change the system.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

The SC's job is to interpret. If you don't like that, change the system.

Which is why the anti-same-sex marriage group got the amendment on the ballot. Because a specific constitutional amendment takes precedence over a more broad one.

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Which is why the anti-same-sex marriage group got the amendment on the ballot. Because a specific constitutional amendment takes precedence over a more broad one.

Yeah. That isn't my problem. If you amend the constitution, then that's fair. What I have a problem with is how easy it is to make such a great change to it. And Prop 8 was a great change. but even then, I'm still not complaining. I'm confident that a re vote would overturn Prop 8. And after that, require a 2/3 majority for any more amendments.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

Yeah. That isn't my problem. If you amend the constitution, then that's fair. What I have a problem with is how easy it is to make such a great change to it. And Prop 8 was a great change. but even then, I'm still not complaining. I'm confident that a re vote would overturn Prop 8. And after that, require a 2/3 majority for any more amendments.

I agree. The 2/3 vote requirement would be more fair.

[revelated]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

It doesn't have to, the SC's interpretation says so:


The SC's job is to interpret. If you don't like that, change the system.

First of all, you said "CALIFORNIA LAW" says that marriage is a right. I asked you to point me to where it says that. You in turn not only did not provide the direct reference, you linked to Wikipedia, the least credible source there is since any Joe can edit text at their leisure.

You quoted without providing the source of your quote.

You say "the court". What court? Supreme Court? Doesn't matter.

You quote an article from a year ago which has already been superseded by Prop 8.

Assuming your quote is even credible, it references Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. Let's use a REAL law reference.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

Originally Posted by Official California Legislative Information Database

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this
Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public
entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which
exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use
of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.
Moderator cut: copyright violation, link and first sentences only please

Nothing in there speaks to marriage as a right. In fact the word "marriage" is not mentioned at all. Do you know why? Because as I said, California law does not explicitly allow it. It can be inferred, as the court did, but it's not exactly specified, which is why Prop 8 was even allowed to be introduced in the first place.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us...oM9AWvJWHHmtCw

Originally Posted by New York Times

Still, Chief Justice George took pains to emphasize the limits of the ruling.
It does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-sex marriages, he said.

Which goes back to what I said a few posts ago. The law should have deferred to whatever the religious leaders decide to do in the matter. That's essentially what they did.

Or did you forget that it was this same Supreme Court that sided with the voters in keeping Prop 8 active?

Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/05/BALP169S2G.DTL - broken link)

Originally Posted by San Francisco Chronicle

The California Supreme Court, which last year declared the right of gays and lesbians to marry, appeared ready Thursday to uphold the voters' decision to overrule the court and restore the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
...
Another member of last year's majority, Justice Joyce Kennard, said the challenge to Prop. 8 brought by advocates of same-sex marriage involved "a completely different issue" from the court's ruling that the marriage laws violated gays' and lesbians' rights to be treated equally and wed the partner of their choice.


Moderator cut: copyright again

I say again...civil unions were created for those that want to bond and receive the same rights and protections as those who are married. If you feel that the rights and privileges are not being afforded to you under a civil union, fight for that, because it's your right. Your argument sir, is null and void...because you referenced events that took place prior to that same Supreme Court doing a 180 on you. Like I said many posts ago, the government does not care about you the individual. The government will not take sides. It will only flow where the votes go. If the majority keep voting it out, it won't happen. The best thing you can do is get civil unions where they need to be and be happy with that.