Does that answer your question?
Does that answer your question?
I always viewed marriage as a social construct outside the realm of government insofar as society informed the government what exactly it was - not exactly a evolving document, mind you, just a lateral change in definition.
Of course, it seems that such a view is antiquated at best these days.
I do think California's Proposition 8 was a reaction to using the judiciary to short-circuit what is and should remain a political and legislative debate. Nothing is quite so antithetical to democratic process as the arrogation of legislative prerogative to the judiciary.
The judiciary gets to say what the law is. It is for the legislatures to say what the law should be.
Where have you seen members of the LGBT community agitating for a lowering of the age of consent?
Where have you seen members of the LGBT community supporting bestiality?
As for marriage to objects....that is just absurd.
No they didn't. They decided that the bill wasn't actually an amendment.The California Supreme Court upheld the right of Californians to amend their constitution.
California has a brain-dead system where any proposition is automatically added to the constitution, even with only a simple majority. However, if a proposition "fundamentally revises" already existing parts of the constitution it requires a 2/3 majority of the state legislature. The court decided that prop 8 didn't conflict with current constitution, despite the fact that passages like this are a part of it.
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
"I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
--Albert Einstein, 1929
California Supreme Court ruling:
California's constitutional mechanisms are unusual in that they differentiate between "revisions" and "amendments."we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision
Whether Proposition 8 was wise or prudent legislation is irrelevant. What matters is that the language was in conformance to the requirements of the California Constitution and to its established amendment processes.In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
The language of the California Supreme Court ruling raises the bar even higher for Olsen to win certiorari for the case. In order for the case to be justiciable before the US Supreme Court, the Court must not only interpret the text of Proposition 8, but also the constitutional language pertaining to revisions and amendments. The US Supreme Court cannot overturn Proposition 8 without overruling the California Supreme Court on a matter pertaining to the California Constitution.
Frankly, I suspect the court will opt not to grant certiorari on this case. The constitutional questions pertaining to the US Constitution just aren't there with sufficient clarity to warrant Supreme Court review.