WSJ: Democracy loses if Prop. 8 is overturned.

[The Ghost of RubangB]

But Prop 8 takes away a right based on sexuality, which is unconstitutional in California. We added sexuality to our Equal Protection Clause in May, so we can't have a separate but equal clause like the WSJ suggests. The passing of Prop 8 (if it is allowed) gives us a State Constitution which on one line says "no laws shall discriminate based on sexuality" and on another line says "only people of this sexuality can get married, the other people get their own separate but equal name for it."

Also, a simple majority isn't enough to change a Constitution, and the reason we don't just allow 50% plus one majorities to discriminate against minorities is because then at any point we could just have 51% decide it's suddenly illegal for Chinese to own land (that used to be the law in California).

If we allow Prop 8 to pass, THAT will be a blow to democracy, because that will allow any majority to discriminate against the minority. It is one of the roles of the courts to protect our minorities from our crazy majorities when they want to start taking rights away.

And I don't know what Biden, Obama, or abortion have to do with this. This is a California constitution issue, and this prop is not compatible with our current constitution.

This jibber jabber about "difference of opinion" doesn't make sense either. Nobody is going to force Mormons to administer gay marriages. Prop 8 was advertised with lies. In current California law, nobody can teach your kid anything without your consent, so nobody's gonna teach your kids about Adam and Steve, so the whole "if we don't pass prop 8 they'll teach our kids about gayness" argument in the advertising WAS A LIE. In current California law, nobody can force anybody to marry anybody else, so the whole "oh noes they'll force our priests to marry homos to each other at OUR church!" argument in the advertising WAS A LIE. Gays have their own churches, and anybody can get ordained on the internet to marry their friends. I know people who've gotten cyber-ordained just for their friends' weddings. Not only would gays not want to have their wedding somewhere they're not welcome, but that's not legal.

This whole prop is unconstitutional, advertised with lies to incite fear and hate and get a separate but equal clause put into our constitution. But our supreme court saw this coming in advance when they lifted our state ban on gay marriages in May, and they added sexuality to our equal protection clause so nobody could pass any propositions like this. This prop isn't gonna make it.

A concerned Californian,
Rubang

P.S. You guys see the news from Florida? They just lifted the 30-year ban on gays adopting kids because it was unconstitutional for a similar reason.