Forums | MacLife

It will just get sneak through as a rider on some economic bail-out bill.

That way it wins no matter what happens. If the bail-out bill goes through gay marriage is quashed - win. If the lefties vote down the bail-out bill then the anti gay marriage people will blame the resultant economic petulance on the gays - also win.

Last edited by test (2008-11-23 10:47 am)

It seems the grounds for challenging it are all to do with wether or not it's an actual amendment in the first place.  It seems there's two ways to change the constitution, via amendment or via revision.  An amendment only needs the retarded 50 percent plus one vote to pass, while a revision needs a 2/3rds majority of both houses to pass. It's argued that such a huge change as stripping people of rights already conferred constitutes a revision, not an amendment.


http://apnews.excite.com/article/200811 … CHMG0.html

The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters.
Over the past century, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging legislative acts or ballot initiatives as improper revisions. The court eventually invalidated three of the measures, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal.
Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign, said he doubts the court will buy the revision argument in the case of the gay marriage ban because the plaintiffs would have to prove the measure alters the state's basic governmental framework.
Joel Franklin, a constitutional law professor at Monterey College of Law, said that even though the court rejected similar procedural arguments when it upheld amendments reinstating the death penalty and limiting property taxes, those cases do not represent as much of a fundamental change as Proposition 8.
"Those amendments applied universally to all Californians," Franklin said. "This is a situation where you are removing rights from a particular group of citizens, a class of individuals the court has said is entitled to cons

ScifiterX wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

I don't think the courts should have the authority to overrule an amendment to the Constitution. Seems like their job should be limited to deciding what laws are constitutional and such. The courts can't just edit out whatever amendments they don't like, after all.

What's the big deal about this marriage thing anyway? I thought gay people were all stark raving smurf anyway.

The since it's a State constitution thing, the state courts don't have the power but the Supreme court does.

I suppose they could hear the case, but wouldn't this be a power not explicitly granted to Congress and therefore that belongs to the states?

Yeah, well... I've been waiting for a federal ruling in favour of same-sex marriage based on the 14th, but it hasn't happened because, I think it was bratty who explained, gays aren't considered an oppressed minority (can't remember the legal term -- "protected?"). Which is the most idiotically absurd heap of steaming nonsense I've ever smurfing heard.

Court rulings are why it's become legal in so many countries, but it seems as though that avenue is completely blocked in the US.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

I don't think the courts should have the authority to overrule an amendment to the Constitution. Seems like their job should be limited to deciding what laws are constitutional and such. The courts can't just edit out whatever amendments they don't like, after all.

The argument is that this change put part of the Constitution in conflict with another (and that this sort of change must be put on the ballot by a supermajority of the legislature).  I don't know much about CA state law, so I'm unsure of the specifics. 

What's the big deal about this marriage thing anyway? I thought gay people were all stark raving smurf anyway.

Why do you constantly say stupid smurf like this?

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

I suppose they could hear the case, but wouldn't this be a power not explicitly granted to Congress and therefore that belongs to the states?

Who is "they?"  This case won't be heard by the US Supreme Court if the ruling is based on California law.

Surely the authors of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply to heterosexual citizens only, since they were barely aware of the existence of any others, right?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

There's been some discussion recently of the prospect of the courts overruling Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-sex marriage).

This has happened before, after all. Around 2000 there was a similar proposition that was overruled by the courts, which started gay marriages happening, which triggered a reaction, which resulted in Prop 8.

Personally, I'm of zero doubt that the courts should overrule Prop 8. The way I see it, no one is above the law, and that includes the voters, and as far as this particular issue goes, every human being has a right to equal treatment and equal rights.

But how will this actually unfold? Will it just go back and forth, courts to voter initiatives, until there aren't enough votes to ban it? Or will people "wake up" about "activist judges" trying to thwart the popular will?

This is a different animal then 2000's Prop 22. Prop 22 contradicted the state's constitution, therefore the court shot it down. However, Prop 8 was a vote to amend the State constitution's declaration of rights.

That being said, Article 1 now arguably contradicts itself. On one hand it says that, "A person may not be... denied equal protection of the laws...,"  then later on is says that laws pertaining to marriage only pertain to a "marriage between a man and a woman."

Whether the state courts can toss out an amendment, I have no idea. A number of state legislators think it's possible.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2008-11-23 10:03 pm)

Would it be legal for the voters to approve a constitutional amendment establishing their state as a fascist dictatorship?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Would it be legal for the voters to approve a constitutional amendment establishing their state as a fascist dictatorship?

If our guns our big enough, anything we want to be legal is legal.

bratboy wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

What's the big deal about this marriage thing anyway? I thought gay people were all stark raving smurf anyway.

Why do you constantly say stupid smurf like this?

I'd like an answer to that one, Duke. And make it a good one, or you're outta here for a while.

.tsooJ