The Ghost of RubangB said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
TheRealMafoo said:
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 When it's to protect something you don't like, those concepts are just outdated.
|
This is a civil rights issue. I don't want the state to have the right to tyrannize a minority. Funny how civil rights and constitutions don't matter to you. When it's the gays, those concepts are just outdated.
|
Regardless, it seems more important that the laws stay consistant. Otherwise it can lead to further breaches of civil rights later.
Like how everyone is afraind more conservative judges on the SC might overturn Roe V Wade.
Why the heck should the Supreme Court be able to overturn a previous decision?
|
For the laws to be consistent we can't have sexuality in our equal protection clause at the same time as having a constitutional amendment that discriminates based on sexuality.
I think the Supreme Court should be able to overturn previous decisions because our body of law is a fickle constantly evolving monster, and it has made many mistakes along the way (especially regarding slavery and discrimination).
It was the opinion of the California Supreme Court in May that the government can't discriminate based on sexuality, and in their official statement they said that for marriage to be constitutional at all, it has to be for everybody or nobody, and that whenever a similar issue comes up, there is legal precedent to grant the right to everybody rather than take it away from everybody. It's always been easier to extend rights to more groups than to take them away.
|
There wasn't any changes regarding slavery or discrimination.
Slavery was specifically repealed via presidential act.
Discrimination was handled by the equal rights ammendment.
The California equal rights ammendment wouldn't make any difference since we already have the US one in which it is illegal to discriminate via sexual orientation. (to my knowledge.)
Once again (while for gay marriage.) I don't see the difference between marriages and Civil unions and mens and womens sports... and a number of other things i'd label as dicrimination. These things should be forced through legally.
I mean what the heck, it's california. How can California not push this through aren't you guys supposed to have some really leftwing polticians?
If things are bended for good, they can also be bended for bad. With no checks against it either way.
