Democracy!... when it goes our way...

[OriginalWheelman]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11024156

The California Supreme Court moved swiftly Wednesday to tackle the latest legal showdown over gay marriage, agreeing to consider three lawsuits that challenge the legality of Proposition 8's abolition of same-sex weddings.

At the same time, the state's high court rejected a bid to put Proposition 8 on hold while the legal struggle unfolds, postponing indefinitely any new wedding vows for gay and lesbian couples. The Supreme Court indicated it is likely to rule by June.

So Californians legalize gay marriage, then they vote it down in an open referendum, and now they are challenging the vote in supreme court. What are they going to call this "People of California vs the People of California?"

First of all I am for gay marriage. I believe that gay people would have the rights to make the same mistakes as straight people.

However, what I don't like is how this was voted on by the people, and now they are trying to overturn it. Shouldn't this law be forced to stand unless a referendum overturns it? If this is overturned, it is a message that the gov can do what it wants whether the people say so or not.

[AZhitman]

Dude, you're TOTALLY seeing the light.

Do a little research on the a$$ we took in AZ a decade ago.

Voters decided AGAINST making MLK Day a holiday. Democracy worked. THEN, some whacko fringe group got it BACK on the ballot, with a twist:

No MLK Day, no SuperBowl. I was actually pertty active in pushing for continued opposition (I don't believe it warrants a State holiday), but the financial pressures were just too much and the State caved.

Just as we saw 3 weeks ago, if you have enough money....

[Cold_Zero]

If I remember correctly,

The California State Constitution was changed in the 1970's to state that marriage constituted two people in a monogamous relationship...Then in 2000, after many attempts to change the state constitution, Californians voted on a referendum to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Because the referendum in 2000 only covered marriages granted by the state of California, a legal battle ensued. There are two parts of California state code (section 300) one that deals with marriages granted in state and the state recognizing out of state marriages. Because the prop didnt address marriages (same sex) issued outside of California but recognized by California, the California Supreme Court in 2005 ruled that the 2000 prop was unconstitutional. Fast forward to the 2008 election and to the passage of Proposition 8. Prop 8 addressed this constitutional issue by defining marriages, which are issued in California and recognized by California as being out of state, as being between a man and a woman. Now the anti Prop 8 groups have decided to, besides interrupting church services, bring the issue back to the California Supreme Court and maybe even the Supreme Court.

How many more times to the people need to speak before some militant deviant groups get it through their head that this is not what people want?

[AZhitman]

What they're NOT comprehending is that in a Democracy, the MAJORITY rules.

NOT the "loud minority".

Again, I could give a damn what they decide. But once the people have spoken, I'm pissed that the fringe whiners somehow think their position supercedes that of the "will of the people".

[Cold_Zero]

I guess my point is that the people have spoken (twice) and certain groups use the courts to subvert the referendum because they don't like the outcome.

Had Prop 8 failed to win in the referendum process, these same groups would be running around the country proclaiming how "the will of the people have spoken" and no one would be launching new law suites.

[sensibleS13driver]

Hm, that would matter if the United States was a Democracy. Thankfully it is not. Do you forget that the people are subverting the Supreme Court? Do they deserve no credit?

Anyone with a grasp of the history of the 14th Amendment knows that this doesn't fly in its present form.

It wouldn't matter even if the vote was 99% to 1% and there was one gay couple in California.

[Cold_Zero]

Hm, that would matter if the United States was a Democracy. Thankfully it is not. Do you forget that the people are subverting the Supreme Court? Do they deserve no credit?

Anyone with a grasp of the history of the 14th Amendment knows that this doesn't fly in its present form.

It wouldn't matter even if the vote was 99% to 1% and there was one gay couple in California.

The people can 'subvert' (as you call it) the California Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Its called a "Constitutional Amendment." Proposition 8 is a California State Constitutional Amendment. And now the California courts have to abide by the Constitution.

And just because we have a Constitutional Federal Republic does not mean that we don't have certain forms of Democracy built into our system.

[sensibleS13driver]

Not if the California amendment is federally unconstitutional. Like I said, most scholars see this as a clear affront to the 14th Amendment. You said subvert first, and you are incorrect, it has never seen the SCOTUS.

A few words of wisdom warning of the danger of such exercises of Democracy, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton respectively:

"Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day."

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control."

[Cold_Zero]

Anyone with a grasp of the history of the 14th Amendment knows that this doesn't fly in its present form.

You are arguing the 14th Amendment on this one?

I fail to see how the 14th Amendment has anything to do with Marriage. And it doesn't give everyone Carte Blanche for what they want.

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.

But I guess going along with your logic why don't the Mormons sue under the same condition to get Polygamy legalized in the West? Child Bridges and marriages between humans and non humans..

[Cold_Zero]

Not if the California amendment is federally unconstitutional. Like I said, most scholars see this as a clear affront to the 14th Amendment. You said subvert first, and you are incorrect, it has never seen the SCOTUS.

Sure if Proposition 8 and the 14th Amendment were in contradiction, it would have to be taken up by SOCTUS. But it is not and besides, you can change the US Constitution by adding a Marriage Amendment, then the issue is over.

Also, States grant (administer) and govern the instituion of Marriage. So any amendment governing such, would typically be changed at the State level.

[sensibleS13driver]

You are arguing the 14th Amendment on this one?

I fail to see how the 14th Amendment has anything to do with Marriage. And it doesn't give everyone Carte Blanche for what they want.

But I guess going along with your logic why don't the Mormons sue under the same condition to get Polygamy legalized in the West? Child Bridges and marriages between humans and non humans..

The Mormon Church may have a hard time campaigning for that as they already spent $22 Million for this Prop!

"Equal" in the 14th Amendment was used as justification for segregation, wherein so long as two schools/drinking fountains/restaurants were "equal" (provided the same civil service) then they were legal.

In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that SEPARATE institutions for different groups of people is inherently UNEQUAL.

By differentiating between a marriage and a civil union, by so little as even a check-box on a form, the government is taking SEPARATE account of a certain group of people, and making the two institutions UNEQUAL.Plug black/catholic/muslim/short/tall into this equation and you will come to the same result of inherent inequality.It is irrelevant that gayness could be a choice. So is religion, and there is no differentiation between religions by the state, correct?

The Supreme Court demands that whenever a law is aimed on the basis of sexual orientation it must be "substantially related to an important state interest."

It doesn't MATTER what the people voted now or 8 years ago. The will of the people HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER constitute an "important state interest" to override equal protection.

Bringing up polygamy is an irrelevant distraction. Polygamy is illegal now. When it is decriminalized then we can talk.

[sensibleS13driver]

Sure if Proposition 8 and the 14th Amendment were in contradiction, it would have to be taken up by SOCTUS. But it is not and besides, you can change the US Constitution by adding a Marriage Amendment, then the issue is over.

Also, States grant (administer) and govern the instituion of Marriage. So any amendment governing such, would typically be changed at the State level.

Yes, you could change the U.S. Constitution and the issue would be over.

But, no, the states' control over marriage is irrelevant. What if the majority voted to "remove the right" (text of the prop) of car enthusiasts to marry? Is that constitutional? We are a minority. It is a choice. We may even be damaging to the fabric of society.Can that fly because the state governs marriage and the majority said so? Nope, the government can not create separate institutions for groups of people based on personal dispositions, even if they are equal.

[Cold_Zero]

The Mormon Church may have a hard time campaigning for that as they already spent $22 Million for this Prop!

You really think that 22 million is going to break the Mormon Church’s back?

Quote »"Equal" in the 14th Amendment was used as justification for segregation, wherein so long as two schools/drinking fountains/restaurants were "equal" (provided the same civil service) then they were legal.

In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that SEPARATE institutions for different groups of people is inherently UNEQUAL.[/quote]

And before that the SCOTUS ruled that segregation was Equal and before that they ruled that slavery was Constitutional. Apparently, SCOTUS is not the be all, end all of Equality. This is why ‘The People’ through the Congress in 1868 voted to grant citizenship and freedom to former slaves. Now that we have gotten into “Equal Protections” and “Equal Access” the sky is the limit on how far we can go with the 14th Amendment. When we play fast and loose with the US Constitution and start interpreting it to give everyone everything that they want.

Quote »By differentiating between a marriage and a civil union, by so little as even a check-box on a form, the government is taking SEPARATE account of a certain group of people, and making the two institutions UNEQUAL.Plug black/catholic/muslim/short/tall into this equation and you will come to the same result of inherent inequality.It is irrelevant that gayness could be a choice. So is religion, and there is no differentiation between religions by the state, correct?

The Supreme Court demands that whenever a law is aimed on the basis of sexual orientation it must be "substantially related to an important state interest."

It doesn't MATTER what the people voted now or 8 years ago. The will of the people HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER constitute an "important state interest" to override equal protection.[/quote]I have a question, if a man married to two women in some African country that allows such types of marriages, immigrates to the Untied States and becomes a citizen. Is his marriage recognized by the State or the Federal Government? Are we then denying, his, her and her privileges (now associated by the 14th Amendment) by denying them the right to marry? Not really arguing this, just always wondered about that scenario..

But seriously civil unions are granted by a few States and are definitely not recognized by the US Federal Government. Why then is there a supposed ‘Equal Access’ for this institution (?) and why are you putting it on the same level as Marriage? I am not really familiar with the term Civil Union, since Indiana does not recognize them. They do recognize common law marriages, but I must admit there is a cloud of confusion associated with this as well.

Quote »Bringing up polygamy is an irrelevant distraction. Polygamy is illegal now. When it is decriminalized then we can talk.[/quote]I am sure that the fundamentalist LDS groups will use the Gay Lobby’s blueprint to obtain legalization and protection on their ‘Sexual Orientation’ before to long. And I will watch to see of the Gay Lobby and the Gay Mafia supports their ‘brothers’ in their cause. /sarcasm.

Yes, you could change the U.S. Constitution and the issue would be over.

But, no, the states' control over marriage is irrelevant. What if the majority voted to "remove the right" (text of the prop) of car enthusiasts to marry? Is that constitutional? We are a minority. It is a choice. We may even be damaging to the fabric of society.Can that fly because the state governs marriage and the majority said so? Nope, the government can not create separate institutions for groups of people based on personal dispositions, even if they are equal.

My point was simply that the reason why Prop 8 was launched at the State level is because the (California) code resides at there.

[sensibleS13driver]

And before that the SCOTUS ruled that segregation was Equal and before that they ruled that slavery was Constitutional. Apparently, SCOTUS is not the be all, end all of Equality. This is why ‘The People’ through the Congress in 1868 voted to grant citizenship and freedom to former slaves. Now that we have gotten into “Equal Protections” and “Equal Access” the sky is the limit on how far we can go with the 14th Amendment. When we play fast and loose with the US Constitution and start interpreting it to give everyone everything that they want.

The 1868 vote is irrelevant, however novel it makes "the people" look and feel, because the 14th Amendment was passed in 1866 and they had no choice.

You don't get that we aren't playing fast and loose handing out rights, rather we are REMOVING rights that WERE rightly established. I am not denying that Prop 8 came about through legitimate legal processes, but the law need not be constitutional to pass, and I suspect that it will now be litigated and struck down.

But seriously civil unions are granted by a few States and are definitely not recognized by the US Federal Government. Why then is there a supposed ‘Equal Access’ for this institution (?) and why are you putting it on the same level as Marriage? I am not really familiar with the term Civil Union, since Indiana does not recognize them. They do recognize common law marriages, but I must admit there is a cloud of confusion associated with this as well.

Like I said, there was a right to gay marriage. The CA Court said so, making it law. There is a higher standard of scrutiny required when a State acts to REMOVE a right from a group of people rather GRANT a right. This does not force other states to GRANT the same rights, but once and if they do, it makes it much more difficult for them to REMOVE them. And a majority vote doesn't meet this standard and never has. I know this is a pretty unintuitive concept.

[C-Kwik]

So Californians legalize gay marriage, then they vote it down in an open referendum, and now they are challenging the vote in supreme court. What are they going to call this "People of California vs the People of California?"

First of all I am for gay marriage. I believe that gay people would have the rights to make the same mistakes as straight people.

However, what I don't like is how this was voted on by the people, and now they are trying to overturn it. Shouldn't this law be forced to stand unless a referendum overturns it? If this is overturned, it is a message that the gov can do what it wants whether the people say so or not.

Reread the article more carefully. Better yet, I'll post the big point:

"The central question in the case is whether a change to the state constitution that removes a legal right for a minority group is so dramatic that it must first be considered by the Legislature before it can be put before the voters.

Gay rights advocates argue that a ballot measure cannot be used to strip away the constitutional rights established in May's Supreme Court ruling. In a technical argument with sweeping ramifications, they contend the gay marriage ban amounted to a revision to the existing state constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature — or a state constitutional convention — to the get the issue on the ballot."

And the bottom line of this Proposition is:

"Unlike other cases, this is a case where for the first time people have voted to single out one group of individuals entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection and taken away civil rights,'' said Donna Ryu, a Hastings College of the Law professor. "It eviscerates the equal protection clause.''

The issue here is if the change to the Constitution is considered a revision or a simple amendment. I don't know the wording of the constitution in this regard, but if the definition of revision includes its civil impact, then I highly doubt this initiative could be defined as a minor amendment. In which case, the law requires that the measure passed through both Legislative houses with a 2/3rds vote before it could be placed on a ballot. Something that would have been unlikely to happen.

Here's a good explanation of it:

http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/documents/caconst.pdf

If Prop 8 supporters were truly right in the way they handled this measure, then they should have no problem with its scrutiny under the high court. If the court were to agree with them, then it would surely back their case. But it seems there is a lot of worry. Perhaps they should have put more thought into the problems associated with putting such a big issue on the ballot through an initiative rather than through the method that would have removed the possibility of this aspect of the measure being scrutinized by the high court. Seems they think that the checks and balances we've built into our system was simply an inconvenience...

[Cold_Zero]

Sorry, I am going to stop arguing because I just realized that I have been defending laws established in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia, which, for my part is probably not the wisest thing to do, because I hate the state. Again, we don't recognize Civil Unions (domestic partnerships) in the way that California does. And to be honest, I think the worrisome thing is that when you say,

This does not force other states to GRANT the same rights, but once and if they do, it makes it much more difficult for them to REMOVE them. And a majority vote doesn't meet this standard and never has. I know this is a pretty unintuitive concept.

California has a pesky way of imposing Its will on the rest of the country by the laws that it passes. I am always reluctant (no matter which way the ruling goes) to have another State dictate what my State can and can not do.

Oh this makes me pine for the days when Kalifornia churned out ridiculous gun control legislation that made it the mockery of the nation.

[Cold_Zero]

"The central question in the case is whether a change to the state constitution that removes a legal right for a minority group is so dramatic that it must first be considered by the Legislature before it can be put before the voters.

Gay rights advocates argue that a ballot measure cannot be used to strip away the constitutional rights established in May's Supreme Court ruling. In a technical argument with sweeping ramifications, they contend the gay marriage ban amounted to a revision to the existing state constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority of the Legislature — or a state constitutional convention — to the get the issue on the ballot."

Why is that? Because they don't like the outcome of this proposition or is there legal precedence in California for such types of actions?

[OriginalWheelman]

Well, the automaker bail out if it went through would infringe my right to keep my money out of GM's pocket, does it then violate the 14th amendment?

[sensibleS13driver]

My post was purely technical. Yours is purely emotional.

I find it worrisome that so many Americans find the Constitution burdensome, rather than reassuring.

Our Great Socialist State that doesn't dole out liberties based on the majority's whim. Take that argument and shove it.

I was on your side when the holy majority in DC took away gun rights. Quit picking and choosing.

[Cold_Zero]

My post was purely technical. Yours is purely emotional.

My last post was emotional, that I admit. I guess I just came to the realization that I have NO eggs in this basket and it’s not worth arguing over. That is all.

Quote »I find it worrisome that so many Americans find the Constitution burdensome, rather than reassuring.[/quote]I guess from the outside looking in, it appears that the people have spoken through a Constitutional Amendment (Prop 22 -2000) and the California Supreme Court struck it down (Judicial Activism) and now the people have spoken again, through a Constitutional Amendment (Prop 8 -2008), and there is talk about the Courts striking it down. You talk about people, who use the Ballot Initiative process to create a Constitutional Amendment to define the legal definition of Marriage, as finding the Constitution burdensome? What about the Courts that can't even adhere to the California State Constitution?

But seriously, we are all arguing over the legal definition of Marriage. Probably, because this issue is NOT about ‘Rights’ but about Acceptance of a deviant life style or culture. Who gives a **** if someone accepts your life style? Why? Because it’s not enough that a person can practice his/her own deviant lifestyle. Nope they have to be ACCEPTED by society. You have to force me not only to allow you to live your lifestyle, but condone it. Give me a break, this is what it is all about.

[sensibleS13driver]

Prop 22 was not an Amendment, which is why the State Constitution as-is was able to strike it down.

I see "Judicial Activism" as a convenient construct for both sides whenever they disagree with a ruling. 6 out of 7 CA Supreme Court Judges were appointed by Republican Governors, not that it matters.

Prop 8 is an Amendment, and as such is unaffected by future State Constitutional rulings, duh. It will have to be taken up at the federal level.

Again, you revert to emotion, though. Victimizing yourself and your views is not a strong argumentative tactic.You don't have to accept or condone anything or treat anyone as equal as anyone else for whatever reason you choose, but the Government does not have that luxury. I feel like a broken record citing the 14th, the article C-Kwik posted says the exact same thing.

Again, the DC majority thought that gun ownership was a deviant lifestyle. Would amending their Constitution make that law any more legitimate? Was the "activist" Supreme Court subverting the will of the people by striking it down?Both cases are quite clear cut constitutional affronts.

[Cold_Zero]

Thank you for the correction on Prop 22. I didn't realize that it was not a Constitutional Amendment initiative. You do make good points, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see the connection between the 14th Amendment and the current 'Separate but Equal' status of Marriage vs. Domestic Partnerships (aka Civil Unions). Again, probably because homosexuals here don't have 'the Right' to get married, nor 'the Right' to Civil Unions. So there is no bridge there.

Still my prior question was never answered. If Prop 8 is unconstitutional because, according to the opponents of Prop 8, it (apparently) 'strips away rights' and the California State Legislature should have taken up the issue (draft legislation and then put it on the ballot), is there case law in California to support this view? Or are their best hopes hinged on sending this to SCOTUS and make the case of the 14th Amendment?

BTW I am not being emotional. When you have the clarity of taking a step back and ask, why does this group or that group do what they do, you see that the motivations are obvious and go well beyond 'Rights' or 'Fairness.' Strip away the buzz words like 'Freedom,' 'Rights' and 'Fairness' and what do you have? And why does any of this stop at just Civil Unions? I know you have already dismissed polygamy as being 'just a distraction' but are the rights of Polygamists less equal under the 14th Amendment than those of the Gay Mafia? Is Polygamy a different form of sexual orientation from that heterosexual and homosexual?

We can argue the meaning of 'Marriage' in the State of California that has little to no bearing on my life in the Midwest. Personally, I find it ironic that Indiana can't get a Marriage Amendment passed through the Legislature because there was not enough time in this session to get it through, but they can pass pull tab gamb|ing and expand gamb|ing across our state. Yet, California puts one up on the ballot and it passes by a pretty wide margin. *shrug*

[sensibleS13driver]

Still my prior question was never answered. If Prop 8 is unconstitutional because, according to the opponents of Prop 8, it (apparently) 'strips away rights' and the California State Legislature should have taken up the issue (draft legislation and then put it on the ballot), is there case law in California to support this view? Or are their best hopes hinged on sending this to SCOTUS and make the case of the 14th Amendment?

I would say yes, the best hopes are sending it to the SCOTUS, and/or waiting 2/4/8 more years and voting for another amendment.

The legislature at least twice (that I know of) voted to overturn Prop 22, but Arnold vetoed it, citing the will of the people. No fault there, his job isn't to interpret the constitution, thank God haha. Though he personally voted No on 8.Anyone with enough signatures can submit a Proposition, and it's not surprising the Legislature never wrote a Prop to overturn 22, it would have failed. As soon as the CA Supreme Court ruled however, Gay marriage became law, period. And a certain level of protection of that law came into being, completely and instantly. A protection that as sexual orientation-based precedent dictates, Prop 8 (the will of the people) alone does not have the power to override.

That is what I see when I strip away motivations and buzz words. Fairness, freedom and rights are in the eye of the beholder- equality is not, in my opinion.

[C-Kwik]

Why is that? Because they don't like the outcome of this proposition or is there legal precedence in California for such types of actions?

Probably as much as those that pushed Prop 8 through as an initiative amendment didn't like the outcome of the Supreme Court's view on the previous law. Prop 8 served to try and eliminate the Supreme Court from the equation by amending the Constitution. If they had gone through the formal process for a revision then it would be harder to have it heard in the high court. The irony in it is that they not only left themselves open for this to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court by circumventing the legislative branch, but if the Supreme Court rules in their favor, then it opens the door for an initiative amendment to undo this part of the constitution as well. And with the voter trend being that new young voters being more liberal on this issue and older conservative voters dying off, it will only be a matter of time before someone does this and succeeds.

Well, the automaker bail out if it went through would infringe my right to keep my money out of GM's pocket, does it then violate the 14th amendment?

Was this comment in response to mine? Perhaps you can elaborate on how it relates to my argument as my point had nothing to do with the 14th amendment...

[audtatious]

I agree, it will pass at some point in the future regardless.

I still find it comical that gays have an issue with Polygamy when what they want themselves is acceptance of their sexual "needs" and desires which is simply a zebra with different stripes.

[OriginalWheelman]

"Unlike other cases, this is a case where for the first time people have voted to single out one group of individuals entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection and taken away civil rights,'' said Donna Ryu, a Hastings College of the Law professor.

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

Was this comment in response to mine? Perhaps you can elaborate on how it relates to my argument as my point had nothing to do with the 14th amendment...

That was my point. Neither does your argument. They're both broad extrapolations of a simple concept.

My point is, suddenly, after the referendum doesn't go their way, now it's unconstitutional. Now they have a problem with it. If the referendum was unconstitutional, how did it get so far with out being stuck down before? Where were they then?

[sensibleS13driver]

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

That was my point. Neither does your argument. They're both broad extrapolations of a simple concept.

My point is, suddenly, after the referendum doesn't go their way, now it's unconstitutional. Now they have a problem with it. If the referendum was unconstitutional, how did it get so far with out being stuck down before? Where were they then?

It is true. There has never been a popular vote to remove a right (don't argue with this, the ballot said "remove the right to marry") of a group of people whom the Supreme Court grants "heightened scrutiny" ever in the United States until now.

As I said, you can put ANYTHING on the ballot if you get enough signatures. An amendment can't be struck down without litigation, and it can't be litigated against unless it passes.

Quit drawing imaginary connections to a rise out of people. Post up some real information if you're going to challenge others, especially constitutional law professors.

Show some 14th Amendment precedent where a popular vote constitutes an important state interest capable of overcoming equal protection (hint: there isn't any) since it's such a "broad extrapolation", and you're such an expert.

[audtatious]

I want a harem, dammit....

When can my sexual desires be fulfilled

[C-Kwik]

I'm pretty sure that's not true.

Please elaborate. One liners do not constitute a discussion. HOW is it not true?

That was my point. Neither does your argument. They're both broad extrapolations of a simple concept.

I'm pretty sure the point I made was quite specific as I cited specific points from both the article and another source that explains the background as to why the point in the argument might be valid. No extrapolated data here.

My point is, suddenly, after the referendum doesn't go their way, now it's unconstitutional. Now they have a problem with it. If the referendum was unconstitutional, how did it get so far with out being stuck down before? Where were they then?

Check you facts. According to Wikipedia:

"Petition to remove proposition from ballotOn July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008."

[OriginalWheelman]

Please elaborate. One liners do not constitute a discussion. HOW is it not true?

Ever hear of the Jim Crow laws? Humanity has seen a lot of ignorance.

I'm pretty sure the point I made was quite specific as I cited specific points from both the article and another source that explains the background as to why the point in the argument might be valid. No extrapolated data here.

Saying that Article 14 ensures gay marriage is extrapolation and broad interpretation.

Check you facts. According to Wikipedia:

"Petition to remove proposition from ballotOn July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008."

So now we're on to semantics. The last hope of the desperate. They're trying every angle that could be conceived as possible. This is ridiculous. So what, now the country is "by the people, unless you have a better lawyer"?