Tonight there will be protests and calls for action on both sides of the issue of Marriage Equality. I watch along with the rest of the entire nation to see what the always-progressive and precedent-setting California Supreme Court will do next. The arguments have been made time and again, but for my partner and I, this comes down to the core issue of basic human rights.
The California Attorney General and I agree that Proposition 8 should fail, but not for any of the reasons raised in the lawsuits. Certain rights cannot be put to a popular vote. No fundamental right can be taken away by the voters.
Could the public, frustrated by a crime wave, take away a criminal defendant's right to remain silent? Definitely not. Voters simply don't get to vote on such things, at least not without a compelling justification. There was no justification for Proposition 8 other than to open another front in the culture way by appealing to hatred, fear and religious zealotry.
Overturning the will of voters is not, and should not be, easy. We live in a democracy, after all. Whomever gets the most votes usually wins (just ask Al Gore). However, every once in a while basic constitutional rights safeguard minority groups from the tyranny of an electoral majority. I'm hoping this is one of these times.
I hope that the California Supreme Court will rule that the thousands of married gay and lesbian couples will continue to live happily ever after -- until they file for divorce, which I predict will happen at about the same rate as their straight counterparts.
With the economy in a shambles, environmental disasters everywhere we look, and war raging around our planet, wouldn't you think the people of California have more important things to worry about? Still, it would have been better if the Attorney General had raised this point BEFORE the election. He could have saved taxpayers and everyone involved millions -- pity!
in many countries, these two ceremonies are, indeed, separate. in some cased, people have elaborate ceremonies for both. few laws would have to be changed to require a jp to sign the papers in the us, returning the ceremonies to the appropriate venues and focus.
If you've deluded yourself into thinking you are a victim because of same-sex marriage then you are worthy of my sympathy for what you alone have done to yourself.
It is up to the elected representatives of the body politic who gets to make laws, NOT the judges.
The judicial branch exists to protect citizens from "tyranny of the majority," as James Madison wrote. You may like how the majority votes now, but what happens when you're no longer the majority? Our U.S. Constitution is a minoritarian document. Our courts are there to help prevent abuses inflicted by the majority on an unpopular minority. That's not a dictatorship. That's true freedom.
Going back to the Magna Carta, Constitutions, their articles, and their amendments have existed to guarantee freedoms, not to limit them. We tried an experiment in using the Constitution to retract freedom rather than to grant rights. It was called the 18th amendment, and we all know how that turned out (you can look it up).
Well then the polygamists should have equal rights as the homosexuals.
In CA it is not a crime to be homosexual; it is a crime to be polygamist.
That is most unfair especially if all parties of the polygamist union are
consenting adults..... Already there is lawsuit going on in Canada
to legalize polygamy using the arguments used by the anti-8 group......
Polygamy (polygyny, polyandry) coming soon to the great state of California!!!
Of course, if the religious wingnuts would start diverting their energies to preventing polygamy from being legalized......
Oh no, scratch that. A lot of them are Mormons.
Gay marriage is a recent innovation. Obviously there's a lot of resistance to it. Just because, to some, it looks like the marriage they were talking about in Loving v. Virginia, doesn't mean that gay people's rights are being taken away.
It also doesn't change the fact that our current standard marriage policy doesn't actually preclude gay individuals from marrying, but it does preclude everyone from marrying someone of the same sex.
Though a popular hobby horse for some, the fact is that 'the rich' of America would not be able to achieve such riches if they were in another country.
For that, they must contribute more than those for whom the country also relies - the poorer people.
They'll still be far better off than in any other country.
Hardly a mandate.
And then there's that little fact that "the people" cannot change the constitution in the manner by which it was attempted with this vote. The "will of the people" is the last part of the process by which we make those changes. The legislature has to be involved first.
This is just such a perfect example of why the initiative process should never have been allowed to fall to "the people" in the first place. Out of state interests manipulated the vote.
Where would it end?
The reason as I understand it, is so the case matches the circumstances. If they had allowed the suit to go forward prior to the vote, and Prop 8 had failed to pass (which there was every reason to believe that it could), then the whole issue would be moot and would have been a waste of the court's time.
The CA Supreme Court already ruled that according to the state's Constitution, marriage is between two consenting adults, opposite or same sex.
In effect, the legal definition of marriage in California WAS changed.
So yes it IS a civil rights argument now. (Actually is was before as well, but I'm using your standard here.)
Did you miss the ruling that started all this?
WRONG.
Wow I would expect a Judge to know more about the US Constitution; specifically Article V and the ability of voters - yes VOTERS - to amend the US Constitution. Heck - the "right to remain silent' is in an amendment - the 5th amendment!!
The voters would need only amend the US Constitution - in the manner specified in Article V. That amendment could be extremely simple - the amendment repeals the part of the 5th amendment that sets out the right to remain silent. And guess what? No more right to remain silent.
You of all people should know that everything in the US Constitution, except for the number of Senators per state, can be amended.
So could the public, frustrated by a crime wave, take away a criminal defendant's right to remain silent? Definitely YES regardless of their reason or justification.
Do you see how the voters NEVER get a voice in the matter of US Constitutional amendments?
First - It is NOT the 5th amendment that controls the amendment process - it is ARTICLE 5.
Second - You have only detailed one way for an amendment to become part of the US Constitution. Go re-read Article 5 again, you clown. Pay particular attention to the other process - constitutional convention. If you still don't understand. Go read up on the 21st amendment and how that got ratified.
Third - Regarding the way you mentioned. Who do you think votes for the US Congress and the State Legislatures. Here I will give you a hint - It starts with the letter V and then followed by an O then T. Oh heck - I will just tell you - the VOTERS!!!!
Do you see how VOTERS - ALWAYS have a voice in the matter of US Constitutional amendments.
Funny how stripping the rights of a minority group shoot directly through this clause.