TheRealMafoo on 26 November 2008
| The Ghost of RubangB said: 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...... |
Funny how now things like States Rights, and Constitutions matter to you. When it's to protect something you don't like, those concepts are just outdated.
