Deep 6 For Prop 8

[piece-itpete]

You can make it out however you wish. I do believe those arguments were addressed and it turned out that those issues were changed because the people willed them to.

The government gets its powers with the consent of the governed, or used to, here. Bless those judges, saving us from ourselves.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I do believe those arguments were addressed and it turned out that those issues were changed because the people willed them to.

Sorry, not true. All were accomplished through the process of Constitutional amendment and all were in opposition to the prevailing popular sentiment.

John

[merrylander]

I was not aware that making same sex marriages legal forces anyone who objects into such a marriage. The thing is that allowing same sex marriage restores their right to a minority and does no harm to anyone. The yammering about it ruining the institution of marriage is hogwash. Take a look at our divorce statistics and we seem to be doing a fine job of ruining the institution without anyone elses help.

[piece-itpete]

John, are you saying that representitive democracy isn't democracy? I'm just trying to get a handle on how a Constitutional amendment gets passed when the majority is against it.

Pete

[finnbow]

Am I missing something here, Pete? The court said that the referendum resulted in a violation of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. What part of that don't you understand?

It makes absolutely no difference in the eyes of the law whether the provisions contained in CA Prop 8 were enacted via a referendum, an act of Congress, or an Executive Order. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, capiche? This "will of the people" argument is a Red Herring of the first order.

Hell, the will of the people is to have no taxes, free beer, 365 days of paid vacation per year, breakfast in bed, and no rap music. If they passed a referendum saying just that, would that mean that these things would simply have to happen?

[d-ray657]

The will of the people also amended the Constitution to include the Equal Protection Clause - which was directed squarely at the states. Unquestionably, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (i.e., the Supremacy Clause). When a state, whether by statute, by state constitution, or by referendum, enacts law that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, that law cannot be enforced, even if it had been adopted unanimously.

The federal judge with the authority of other judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause, ruled that a statute which confers no public benefit and prevents no public harm cannot be used to deprive a group of citizens from enjoying the equal protection of the laws. There is no rational basis for such a law.

By the way, the judiciary is the branch charged with interpreting the law and determining how the law applies to various disputes that are brought before it. Judge Walker did not initiate this lawsuit. It was brought by people who were harmed by the application of the California provision. When the evidence showed that the provision deprived the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the law, it was the judge's duty to enforce the Constitution. The judge was fulfilling the duties imposed upon him by Article III of the Constitution and the oath he took to uphold the Constitution.

Pete the only justification for your opposition the the judge's ruling is your prejudice toward a group of individuals whose lifestyle you (and others) disapprove of. That such prejudice might have a bearing in religious beliefs is irrelevant under the law. It is clearly not sufficient reason to violate the Constitution.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

John, are you saying that representitive democracy isn't democracy? I'm just trying to get a handle on how a Constitutional amendment gets passed when the majority is against it.

Pete

Yes and sometimes amendments fail despite being favored by a majority, the Equal Rights Amendment being a case in point. Study the amendment process. Amendments are proposed and adopted by elected representatives and/or appointed delegates. Such people not infrequently act in opposition to the will of their constituencies, whether it be regarding constitutional amendmants or legislation. Sometimes, in my opinion, that's entirely appropriate.

Direct democracy is mob rule, anarchy. Representative democracy is supposed to temper the will of the masses with the wisdom and experience of those whom we elect. If , however, our representatives fail to act in ways beneficial to our perceived interests, we have the remedy of the ballot box. It works surprisingly well.

John

[d-ray657]

Finn, you type too fast.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I was not aware that making same sex marriages legal forces anyone who objects into such a marriage. The thing is that allowing same sex marriage restores their right to a minority and does no harm to anyone. The yammering about it ruining the institution of marriage is hogwash. Take a look at our divorce statistics and we seem to be doing a fine job of ruining the institution without anyone elses help.

Absolutely, BRAVO! Once again, Rob!

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Suddenly, it's unconstitutional. Why? Because a judge thinks so - now. Apparently changing the long understood meaning of words is in the perview of the Judiciary.

Just think of all the good this will result in.

Pete