Comments on: Calif. lawmakers voice support for gay marriage

By: gay volt

gay volt — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:56:59 +0000

the answers to all of this are at http://www.gayvolt.com

By: Randall

Randall — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:31:23 +0000

Maybe California ought to look into amending the law on percentages to win to increase the number needed to change the state constitution. Florida uses 60% and if that had been the case in Cali then gays would still be married.

By: rick

rick — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:44:29 +0000

hey ! its deja vu all over again !!

By: HappyCat

HappyCat — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:55:10 +0000

The court could not rule on a hypothetical situation. All the legal wording had to be put in place to decide if Hate 8 was just an amendment or a revision.

The difference in the argument is marriage a ‘civil right’ If marriage is a ‘civil right’ then the constitution needs to be revised, requireing a revision that needs 2/3s of both houses to get the revision to the voters to approve.

The religious right is claiming marriage is available to every citizen, as long as you choose to marry a member of the opposite sex. But than again, marriage rights include two citizens. This is why you hear there is a difference between religious and civil marriage. The result could become that marriage has no protections in the constitution and therefore terminate all civil marriages. This is not likely to happen, but it could. The equal protection clause states that ALL are equally protected, whether single or married.

The continuous pushing by the right might just force the government from recognize any for of marriage to set all people equal.

My guess is that the legislature is doing this to get Same-Sex Marriage Legal again, and removing pressure from the courts. What I haven’t heard, is there any need for the Gubinator to sign off on this, and if he does, will he sign it or veto it?

By: John in CA

John in CA — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:21:14 +0000

I think the Supreme Court should take any concurrent resolution seriously, even though it is non-binding. It certainly raises important “separation of powers” issues. In effect, the California Legislature is asserting that only it has the competence to take away fundamental rights. And since a 2/3rd super-majority in both the Asembly and Senate is nearly impossible to achieve, one would imagine seasoned politicians being a little more deliberate and cautious than the electorate. Thus, lawmakers are arguing that the responsibility for such matters should rest with them rather than Joe the Plumber. Any so-called “amendment” to the constitution which modifies rights the citizenry already enjoys is, in fact, a “revision” by default.

What makes this proposition different from any of the other anti-gay constitutional amendment is that 18,000 couples had already tied the knot. This wasn’t just a vote to ban same-sex marriage in some hypothetical future that doesn’t exist yet. It was the stripping away of rights already conferred by the state. That makes this court case unprecedented. There’s no telling how it’ll end because there’s simply no case law on it.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:25:15 +0000

Anticipating Andrew’s next question, where was our AG, Jerry the Brown, with an opinion on Prop 8 before it was put to the ballot? P8 is classic Tyranny of the Majority, why no ruling or oversite that could have saved everyone $60 Mil?

By: LOrion

LOrion — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:59:52 +0000

To clarify for Andrew a bit.. there are two types of ‘amendments’ delineated for our state Constitution. The ‘basic’ one, that does not change any previous rights requires only a majority (50%+1)… some of our states require a supermajority…e.g. Florida..that is 60% +1..
However a ‘revisionary’ amendment that does change previous rights must first be ratified by 2/3 of the Legislature. The Court let this be voted on as a ‘basic’ amendment. The legal complaint we are making is that it is a change of rights and requires the 2/3. That case is due by Dec 19, to be heard by March and decided within 90 days from then.
My feeling about why these proposals were initiated is just to get a vote…sort of as a ‘friend of the court’ thing that even if they were asked to vote in a SSM ban they would not do it.
These hold NO LEGAL status… just voice consensus.

By: Scott in SF

Scott in SF — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:58:39 +0000

Andrew, there are two different ways to change the California constitution: through an amendment and through a revision. A revision must start in the Legislature, with the aforementioned 2/3 majority in both houses, before sent to the people for ratification. An amendment may be accomplished through a ballot initiative, which can be brought if a sufficient number of voters sign a petition to put it on the ballot. A constitutional amendment by voter initiative only needs 50% + 1 of the electorate to pass. One of the issues before the court is whether Prop 8 was an amendment, or whether the content was more properly characterized a revision, and therefore could not be achieved by ballot initiative.

I should point out that my explanation above is particular to California, and it should not be confused with the laws of Arizona, Florida, Mass., Conn., etc. Each state has its own peculiarities, as is the case in Oz.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:07:12 +0000

I remember St. Ronald of Reagan being the first to use the term “activist judges.” And always in reference to what were perceived to be liberal rulings.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:52:20 +0000

Hey everyone,

Just curious. In this article it sayst that:
“While a proposed amendment to the California Constitution can be accomplished through the initiative process,” the resolution reads, “A proposed revision of the California Constitution must originate in the Legislature and must be approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature before being submitted to the electors.”

It doesn’t specifically say in the rest of the article if the two thirds of the legislature part was actually done.

Did the peopel who put together the Prop 8 to begin with somehow “skip” that part??

if so, then i guess that’s a VERY good case for striking the nasty thing down.

I’m for Australia, so don’t know much about how your government works.

Can someone advise??

Besf of luck to you all – the world is watching, beleive me!