Prop 8

[richalisoviejo]

Our government, whether it is our federal government or our state government, must serve ALL the people (not just the Christians and the heterosexuals) on an equal basis. Marriage, like freedom of speech, is a CIVIL right that the government cannot deny or disparage. That homosexuals have borne the brunt of discrimination from the "dawn of time" is not justification for continuing that discrimination. All people (including homosexuals) are entitled to equal protection under the law.

In California, however, a majority of the people voted to write STATE SANCTIONED DISCRIMINATION into their constitution. In substance and effect, it now says: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws, with the exception of a homosexual person who may be denied equal protection of the laws."

I would have hoped we Californians were more tolerant than this.

 

[Crazy1]

Rich, I so truly agree with you. I do hope in the near future Californians will wake up and realize that re-writing the constitution does not make it non discriminatory.

 

[chadk]

Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.

Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question?

And I don't know about the 'brunt' of discrimination either. At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays? I work with many and see no sign of them taking on the brunt of any discrimination. They are happy, high paying jobs, home owners, voters, etc etc. To say they take on the brunt of discrimination seems like a slam on those, like blacks and jews, who really did have systematic discrimination against them to a degree we can hardly imagine now days...

 

[richalisoviejo]

Legally, there are many varied steps that members of a class may take to fight discrimination in our state and federal courts. Those efforts may or may not be successful depending on the skill of the attorneys involved and how they develop their legal arguments. The problem here is that the California Supreme Court recently reviewed the issue of discrimination against gay couples under the equal protection clause in the STATE constitution. In May 2008, the CA Supreme Court declared that "separate but (allegedly) equal" civil unions for gay couples were, in fact, NOT equal and did not satisfy the equal protection clause. The civil right to marry must be afforded to all couples (heterosexual and homosexual) on an equal basis.

Because a coalition of people would not accept that the state must constitutionally afford equal protection of the laws to ALL people in the state, they sought to AMEND the state constitution to make it LEGAL for them to discriminate against gay couples. In California, it is not difficult to AMEND the constitution. You gather the requisite number of signatures on a petition and place the matter on a statewide ballot. A mere majority of the voters may then vote to legalize oppression and tyranny of the minority. Given the intentions of our FOUNDERS when they designed our CONSTITUTIONAL Republic (as outlined in my previous post), California's method of amending its organic document effectively makes its STATE constitutional republic a farse. Or does it?

That said, I believe a skilled attorney may effectively argue that Proposition 8, which "constitutionalizes" discrimination, is inimical to the equal protection clause itself. In other words, the two cannot survive together in the same organic document. The people have a right to alter their form of government, and if they choose to do so, they may repeal the equal protection clause altogether and form a pure democracy rather than a constitutional republic. But, because the equal protection clause says what it means and means what it says--exceptions to the organic clause cannot be tolerated without rendering the entire clause meaningless. Thus, if the majority of the people desire to render individual life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness INSECURE and UNPROTECTED and subject to the whims of changing coalitions of people--they may do so by REPEALING the equal protection clause in its entirety. Because Proposition 8 did not repeal the equal protection clause, it may be argued that its attempt to write discrimination into the constitution is legally ineffective.

Another way to attack the results of Proposition 8 is to challenge it under the equal protection clause of the FEDERAL constitution. However, from a pragmatic sense, the people of California may wish to wait. Proposition 8 passed by a small margin. TWO-THIRDS of the young people who voted in the election voted NO on Proposition 8. This indicates that the youth of this country are more enlightened than their elders and understand that discrimination is unfair, unjust, and plain wrong. Given how easy it is to amend the CA State Constitution, in a few short years the people of CA will most likely repeal the offensive language. They should ALSO make it much harder to amend the constitution, i.e. require a SUPER MAJORITY, in order to prevent injustices like this from happening again in the future.

 

[Crazy1]

Chad, discrimination in any sense is still discrimination regardless of to whom or how it is doled out.

 

[chadk]

Chad, discrimination in any sense is still discrimination regardless of to whom or how it is doled out.

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to work with the constitutional aspect of this to better understand if this is a 'right' and what exactly that means and what this really says about what happened in California. Pointing fingers and calling names will not help on either side.

 

[Isa]

I agree with you Rich
I find it really sad what is happening in California.

 

[Itort]

As I am sure you are all aware in Iowa here same sex marriage is now legal (though not recognized in 46 other states) and surprising enough life is as before with no sudden decline in society. Marriage is a serious commitment between two people and the gays that I am familiar with recognize it as such which is more than can be said for many "straight" couples. In conversations with antis one fact becomes obvious in most cases, they are in the end bigoted and ignorant of the core issues.

 

[chadk]

Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.

Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question?

And I don't know about the 'brunt' of discrimination either. At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays? I work with many and see no sign of them taking on the brunt of any discrimination. They are happy, high paying jobs, home owners, voters, etc etc. To say they take on the brunt of discrimination seems like a slam on those, like blacks and jews, who really did have systematic discrimination against them to a degree we can hardly imagine now days...

Didn't see this addressed by anyone. Not sure if Rich was attempting to or not.

Again, you need to show that marriage is a 'right'. Where is that established in the state or federal constitution? How do you define marriage? Who defines 'marriage'?

Sensationalizing by using grossly inaccruate phrases like "brunt of discrimination since the dawn of time" only get in the way of dealing with the facts. And calling the majority of californians (and the majority of other Americans) a 'coalition' is using the term loosely at best. The voters who supported Prop 8 and others in the country who support that line of thinking come from very diverse backgrounds. Calling them ignornant, 'un-enlightened', biggoted, or uneducated and so forth may make you feel better, but again, is simply not accurate (sure, in some cases - on both sides...).

 

[richalisoviejo]

Where does the constitution specifically say that marriage is a right? And then if it is there, you need to see how it is defined.

Didn't the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) that Clinton signed into law relate to the second part of my question?

And I don't know about the 'brunt' of discrimination either. At least here in the USA, aren't gays statistically making more money than non-gays? I work with many and see no sign of them taking on the brunt of any discrimination. They are happy, high paying jobs, home owners, voters, etc etc. To say they take on the brunt of discrimination seems like a slam on those, like blacks and jews, who really did have systematic discrimination against them to a degree we can hardly imagine now days...

Didn't see this addressed by anyone. Not sure if Rich was attempting to or not.

Chad as I stated before like freedom of speech, marriage is a fundamental CIVIL right protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment, mariage is a liberty interest and liberty emcompass all humane activity. And not it does not mean someone can marry their dog, Liberty interest is humane rightss, not plant or animal.

Our founders understood that freedom can be lost in many ways, not just at the hands of an oppressive and tyrannical dictator. Individual rights can be lost at the hands of the majority. To protect and secure ALL the people of this nation from tyranny and oppression (in whatever form it takes), our founders designed a consitutional republic with checks and balances distributed among three branches of government. The judicial branch of government is our last bastion of hope and liberty that stands between the individual and the government.

Don't take my word on the foregoing. Read the Federalist Papers. Jump ahead to the Federalist No. 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful

Thus, our Founders recognized that the very essense of the REPUBLICAN CAUSE is security for civil rights and justice for ALL: the weaker as well as the more powerful. It is that security and protection that is our birthright as Americans and it will forever be pursued by the weaker classes of persons in civil society until it is obtained. Our republican form of government was designed to enable the liberty interests of the minority to be secured and protected against the injustices of the majority.

If it were not for those damn "liberal" Founders and all those damn "liberals" who came after them who have fought, bled, and died for the security of civil rights for all individuals, we would NOT live in the greatest nation on earth. YOU would not be the beneficiary of the freedoms that you enjoy today.

 

[chadk]

Sorry, but again, you haven't established that marriage is indeed a 'right'. And you have yet to establish the definition of marriage that includes anything beyond one man and one woman.

DOMA includes this text:

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

The current President, as well as the last 2 (Bush and Clinton and probably all before them) all agree that marriage should be between a man and a women.

The DOMA was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Vermont and Maine having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

 

[richalisoviejo]

Sorry, but again, you haven't established that marriage is indeed a 'right'. And you have yet to establish the definition of marriage that includes anything beyond one man and one woman.

DOMA includes this text:

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife

The current President, as well as the last 2 (Bush and Clinton and probably all before them) all agree that marriage should be between a man and a women.

The DOMA was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House of Representatives. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Vermont and Maine having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

Read the fourteenth Amendment.

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


DOMA is not the law and neither is wikipedia, the Constitution is the Supreme Law.

On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief.

On November 5, 2008, the day after the horrifying hate election of November 4, 2008 where California voters appear to have passed Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage attempt at a Constitutional amendment, Lambda Legal Defense and the ACLU filed an Amended Petition for Extraordinary Relief Including Writ of Mandate and Request for Immediate Injuctive Relief.

And the No on 8 campaign has not conceded yet either as California has 30 days to count all the ballots and there can be at least 3 million ballots yet to be counted which could reverse the outcome of Proposition 8 as it is very close. As of Nov 5 at 7:05 p.m., Prop 8 passes with 52% of the vote or 5,387,000. votes

The Petition for Writ of Mandate and Injunctive Relief filed on November 5, 2008 in the California Supreme Court is Strauss v. Horton, Action No. S168047, at
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....creen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566226&doc_no=S168047

The full text may be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html

The press releases on this subject from the ACLU may be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html
and
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37701prs20081105.html

California will continue to honor the 18,000 same sex marriages that were performed before November 4, 2008 as this heinous "Constitutional amendment" is not retroactive.

The Petition for Writ of Mandate is based on the excellent premise that Proposition 8 "is invalid because it would constitute a CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, not a constitutional amendment, and AS SUCH, THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT IT MAY NOT BE ENACTED BY INITIATIVE."

The Petition does an excellent job of discussing the history of civil rights struggles and the necessity of California courts to exercise "their core, traditional constitutional role of protecting the established equality rights of a minority." “If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would strike directly at the foundational constitutional principle of equal protection in a manner that far transcends its immediate impact on a particular group, by establishing that an unpopular group may be selectively stripped of fundamental rights by a simple majority of voters.”

“Such an attempt to mandate government discrimination against a vulnerable minority in our state’s Constitution, and to prevent the courts from fulfilling their quintessential constitutional role of protecting minorities, would work such a drastic change in our constitutional system that it must be regarded as a REVISION rather than an amendment.”

“Proposition 8 opens the door to step-by-step elimination of state constitutional protections for lesbian and gay Californians and, indeed, for other disfavored minorities, perhaps even based on other suspect classifications.” “See, e.g., Martin Niemöller’s now classic formulation of the dangers posed by failing to recognize that permitting the government to discriminate against one disfavored group undermines the freedom of all: First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a German anti-fascist preacher imprisoned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937-1945.

As labor says, an injury to one is an injury to all.

We, the supporters of the gay liberation movement, both gay and straight, will not rest until gay marriage is legal.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/05/18549202.php

Now it’s been nice but I have to get ready for a dinner date.

 

[chadk]

Sorry, but you still did not shown where the constitution or the 14th ammendment say anything about marriage being a right. Can you highlight the word "marriage" for me?

The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by Clinton. So yes, DOMA is the law. Why do you say it isn't?

 

[Candy]

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why This Amendment Exists:
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.

I believe this would cover the right to marriage.[/quote][/php]

---

Implicit Rights:
But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.

 

[chadk]

Yes, it might cover marriage. But that has yet to be determined. And then if marriage is determined to be a right, then you have to establish another important factor... You have to define marriage.

For example, it could be that the courts decide that marriage is indeed a right that needs protection. All American's of legal age have the right to marry. So the right is granted to all. Now if marriage is determined to be only between a man and a woman, then the right still applies to all Americans, and thus the protection still exists.

Now if some want to challenge the definition of marriage to include other relationships of any group of consenting adults (male to male, female to female, brother to sister, father to daughter, multiple spouses, etc), then that is another battle altogether.

 

[Candy]

I think it does cover marriage as the amendment is written with the purpose of protecting the people from the government violating unlisted rights/liberties (ie. Prop 8). Defining marriage could also run afoul of this amendment's purpose by allowing government to violate a person's rights by limiting them on the basis of majority rule. A founding principle in choosing a republic over a democracy is in the protection of minority rights (something the founders were all too familiar with).

 

[richalisoviejo]

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why This Amendment Exists:
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.

I believe this would cover the right to marriage.

[/php]

---

Implicit Rights:
But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.
[/quote]


Excellent

---

Sorry, but you still did not shown where the constitution or the 14th ammendment say anything about marriage being a right. Can you highlight the word "marriage" for me?

The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by Clinton. So yes, DOMA is the law. Why do you say it isn't?

Oh but I have you have just missed it, marriage once again is a liberty interest. And on another note it doesn’t matter which President believes marriage is between a man and a woman tell me how that is legal? It's NOT the "exact same." If you are informed, then you know that the "separate but equal" principle that is used to perpetuate discrimination among classes of people was discredited more than a half century ago. All families, whether headed by homosexual or heterosexual couples, are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Again, now lets say if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

---

Chadk I’d like to ask one question. If gay marriage were illegal and unconstitional then why would there be a need to amend the state constitions to ban such a practice?

 

[chadk]

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why This Amendment Exists:
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern.

I believe this would cover the right to marriage.

[/php]

---

Implicit Rights:
But most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence.

---

Excellent

---

Sorry, but you still did not shown where the constitution or the 14th ammendment say anything about marriage being a right. Can you highlight the word "marriage" for me?

The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by Clinton. So yes, DOMA is the law. Why do you say it isn't?

Oh but I have you have just missed it, marriage once again is a liberty interest. And on another note it doesn’t matter which President believes marriage is between a man and a woman tell me how that is legal? It's NOT the "exact same." If you are informed, then you know that the "separate but equal" principle that is used to perpetuate discrimination among classes of people was discredited more than a half century ago. All families, whether headed by homosexual or heterosexual couples, are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Again, now lets say if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

---

Chadk I’d like to ask one question. If gay marriage were illegal and unconstitional then why would there be a need to amend the state constitions to ban such a practice?
[/quote]



No, your opinion is that marriage is a liberty interest. The courts will need to decide that beyond just your or my opinion. Can a case be made for that? Sure. But it has not been established yet.

And again, DOMA was signed into law. Right?

 

[richalisoviejo]

No, your opinion is that marriage is a liberty interest. The courts will need to decide that beyond just your or my opinion. Can a case be made for that? Sure. But it has not been established yet.

And again, DOMA was signed into law. Right?

Until the USSC rules on gay marriage DOMA means nothing. I don't think we have forgotten or should be overly upset about the gay marriage issue. The president has four years before re-election. He has to deal with the seriousness of our nations economic status and the unfortunate wars we are still in. I think that we need to show what good citizens the GLBT society is and be patient. Their time will come, mixed race marriage didn't happen over night and I don't think that we should expect it either. I think that the importance of what is going on with their fight betters the next generation. We certainly cannot be upset for the strides they have made thus far. Even if they don't win the full ride for themselves, I think we can rest assured that the next generation will.

Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law. Because the state government (and not religious institutions) controls entry, any barriers must be (at a minimum) rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in preventing homosexual couples from entering a marriage. Marriage is a liberty interest just as abortion is a liberty interest for women to choose their own reproductive destitny. Security for the civil rights of individuals and minorities against majoritarian oppression is the core feature of a constitutional republic. The framers provide that security through constitutional checks and balances and constitutional gurantees of due process and equal protection. If a mere majority of voters may cast their votes to amend their state constitution and extinguish constitutional security for an entire class of people, and yet retain that security for themselves, then they have rendered the equal protection clause meaningless, have rendered the courts powerless to exercise their constitutional role designed to secure the rights for individuals and minorities, and have essentially extinguished their constitutional republic. That is a major revision of the constitution and the state's form of government that cannot logically nor legally take place on the mere whim of a majority of voters (in this case 52 percent).

As I mentioned before, voter initiated exceptions to the equal protection clause cannot coexist in the same organic document as the equal protection clause itself. If the people of California want to form a pure democracy, they must first repeal the equal protection clause in its entirety. If they do so, however, they should be aware that the federal constitution guarantees to every state in the union a republican form of government. If the people are stupid enough to scrap their equal protection clause, Congress has the power to punish the entire state by refusing to seat their elected congressmen and senators. Congress may also view the act as an insurrection requiring other severe sanctions or even military intervention.

 

[Laura]

Religion needs to stay out of it.
Marriage is between two people that love each other and want to commit. Period.
They arguments i hear from people are always a religious one.. Im all for religion, but doesnt God love everyone? He created everyone supposedly.. Gay People too... The majority of Gay people I know were Born that way.. It wasnt a choice.. ( a few girls maybe werent..but....) Just like it wasnt My choice to be Hetero.. Its who I am..