• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will CA do the right thing and overturn Prop 8?

Will the CA courts overturn Prop 8?


  • Total voters
    27

Inferno

activist professor
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,017
Reaction score
713
Location
Tipping Velvet
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It is getting to the final days. The decision on CA's Prop 8 is coming up this week. Will the courts stand up for civil rights as they always have. Will they fight for the 4% of Americans that have no voice? Will they allow the mob rule that can be an ugly thing?

I do believe that the courts will do the right thing and overturn Prop 8! :2wave:
 
I really do believe that the courts will overturn this travesty of justice and freedom to all Americans.
 
It is getting to the final days. The decision on CA's Prop 8 is coming up this week. Will the courts stand up for civil rights as they always have. Will they fight for the 4% of Americans that have no voice? Will they allow the mob rule that can be an ugly thing?

I do believe that the courts will do the right thing and overturn Prop 8! :2wave:
Proposition 8 amended the California State Constitution. It cannot be overturned as being unconstitutional. If the courts overturn, they are rewriting the constitution; that is beyond the competence of every court.
 
I really do believe that the courts will overturn this travesty of justice and freedom to all Americans.
The travesty would be for the court to overreach and rewrite the California constitution. That would be the end of the rule of law in California.

Courts get to say what the law is. Legislatures and voters get to say what the law should be. That is the order of things.
 
Proposition 8 amended the California State Constitution. It cannot be overturned as being unconstitutional. If the courts overturn, they are rewriting the constitution; that is beyond the competence of every court.
The Prop 8 amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.
 
The Prop 8 amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.

Where is "marriage" in there?


I support gay marriage but the fact is once something is done, it's done. The courts would be overstepping their boundaries to try to overturn a constitutional amendment on a constitutional basis.

In 20 years or so we'll see pretty much every state legalize gay marriage, but for now things are the way they are.
 
As much as I would like to see it overturned, I don't see how this can be accomplished. The vote, to my knowledge, was constitutional... unless of course activists can prove that some aspect of it wasn't, or find other such loopholes.

I just hope that whatever happens, the people who are already married will not have their marriages annulled.

We shall see.
 
It is getting to the final days. The decision on CA's Prop 8 is coming up this week. Will the courts stand up for civil rights as they always have. Will they fight for the 4% of Americans that have no voice? Will they allow the mob rule that can be an ugly thing?

I do believe that the courts will do the right thing and overturn Prop 8! :2wave:

The right thing is to respect the will of the people....And its is pure BS to say that the homosexuals have no rights...
 
In 20 years or so we'll see pretty much every state legalize gay marriage, but for now things are the way they are.
What purpose does it serve to be part of obstructing it then? Why not just save us all a lot of trouble and legal expenses?
 
The Prop 8 amendment violates Article 1, Section 1, of California's Constitution, which enumerates "inalienable rights" to, among other things, liberty, happiness and privacy.
An amendment to a constitution is structurally unable to violate that constitution. It is, by definition, an alteration of the form, substance, and terms of that constitution.

The simplest counter is that Prop 8 substantively declares gay marriage not among the "inalienable rights"--which, as an amendment to the constitution, is perfectly legal and reasonable.
 
The right thing is to respect the will of the people....And its is pure BS to say that the homosexuals have no rights...
What is pure BS is the canard that people are saying any such thing.

The will of the people was to pass Prop 8. The Amendment should stand.
 
An amendment to a constitution is structurally unable to violate that constitution. It is, by definition, an alteration of the form, substance, and terms of that constitution.

The simplest counter is that Prop 8 substantively declares gay marriage not among the "inalienable rights"--which, as an amendment to the constitution, is perfectly legal and reasonable.

The question isn't about whether the amendment violates the constitution, it's about whether the process in which the amendment was passed was the proper way to amend the constitution.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue either way, but this is what we get when we rely on the courts to set policy.
 
What is pure BS is the canard that people are saying any such thing.

The will of the people was to pass Prop 8. The Amendment should stand.
Unless of course it's repealed using the following criteria:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 1. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may propose an amendment or revision of the Constitution and in the same manner may amend or withdraw its proposal. Each amendment shall be so prepared and submitted that it can be voted on separately.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 2. The Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, may submit at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority vote yes on that question, within 6 months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

I have no doubt a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage bans will eventually pass this way. The writing is on the wall...why fight it unitll then Celticlord?
 
Last edited:
Proposition 8 amended the California State Constitution. It cannot be overturned as being unconstitutional. If the courts overturn, they are rewriting the constitution; that is beyond the competence of every court.

The travesty would be for the court to overreach and rewrite the California constitution. That would be the end of the rule of law in California.

Courts get to say what the law is. Legislatures and voters get to say what the law should be. That is the order of things.

The Ca Constitution needs to be in line with the US Constitution. If it is not than it need to be rewritten. The CA Prop 8 fight will bring this to the SCOTUS and will see that same sex marriage will be made legal in every state. It could work for the best if CA decides it wants to go against the US Constitution.
 
Where is "marriage" in there?


I support gay marriage but the fact is once something is done, it's done. The courts would be overstepping their boundaries to try to overturn a constitutional amendment on a constitutional basis.

In 20 years or so we'll see pretty much every state legalize gay marriage, but for now things are the way they are.

If Prop 8 is allowed to stand same sex marriage will be in every state sooner than that.
 
The right thing is to respect the will of the people....And its is pure BS to say that the homosexuals have no rights...

And allow mob rule. That is why the rule of law is in place. It is a protection to keep the 51% from keeping the 49% from having in any rights at all.
 
The Ca Constitution needs to be in line with the US Constitution. If it is not than it need to be rewritten. The CA Prop 8 fight will bring this to the SCOTUS and will see that same sex marriage will be made legal in every state. It could work for the best if CA decides it wants to go against the US Constitution.

The SCOTUS will not say that the US Constitution requires states to allow gay marriage, nor will it even hear such a case.

And allow mob rule. That is why the rule of law is in place. It is a protection to keep the 51% from keeping the 49% from having in any rights at all.

This is a bit of a broad statement. Yes, there are rules designed to keep the majority from oppressing the minority in some situations. However, the purpose of democracy is to allow the majority to make decisions that affect everyone.

The question isn't whether 51% can rule over 49% in any situation, it's whether this is a specific case where 51% can't rule over 49%. Nothing indicates that it is.
 
The SCOTUS will not say that the US Constitution requires states to allow gay marriage, nor will it even hear such a case.



This is a bit of a broad statement. Yes, there are rules designed to keep the majority from oppressing the minority in some situations. However, the purpose of democracy is to allow the majority to make decisions that affect everyone.

The question isn't whether 51% can rule over 49% in any situation, it's whether this is a specific case where 51% can't rule over 49%. Nothing indicates that it is.

That is what the people said about Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. The SCOTUS will have to hear this eventually. The ACLU and Lambda Law are already framing cases for just that occasion.
 
If it were about family as Jerry mentioned in another thread I would not mind it being overturned (don't see that happening though) but it's not. It is about social engineering.

I have asked before and no one answered, so I will ask again.

If in CA gay couples already gets all the rights, benefits etc of heterosexual couples, why is it they so desperately want it called marriage?
 
If it were about family as Jerry mentioned in another thread I would not mind it being overturned (don't see that happening though) but it's not. It is about social engineering.

I have asked before and no one answered, so I will ask again.

If in CA gay couples already gets all the rights, benefits etc of heterosexual couples, why is it they so desperately want it called marriage?

I had this same debate with my father the other day. This is how I see it.

Take for example: Since the founding of our country white men were only allowed to marry one woman but all other minorities could marry three women. After decades of struggle it was decided "ok white men can now have two wives". While it is progress they are still have not achieved the "same" rights as others. They look at it as stopping 99% of the way and feel that the majority still wont give them the last little bit. At least this is how I precieve there view. While you or I may see it as the same and perhaps feel they should be happy with what they have achieved we would also be asking them to settle for just a little less then what we have.
 
Last edited:
That is what the people said about Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. The SCOTUS will have to hear this eventually. The ACLU and Lambda Law are already framing cases for just that occasion.

They can frame it all they want, but the SC doesn't have to hear anything, and it's highly unlikely that the court would require the states to do anything here.

Abortion is a completely different issue than gay marriage.
 
They can frame it all they want, but the SC doesn't have to hear anything, and it's highly unlikely that the court would require the states to do anything here.

Abortion is a completely different issue than gay marriage.

I guess we will see. If it comes to a constitutional disagreement the SCOTUS will eventually have to hear it.
 
It is getting to the final days. The decision on CA's Prop 8 is coming up this week. Will the courts stand up for civil rights as they always have. Will they fight for the 4% of Americans that have no voice? Will they allow the mob rule that can be an ugly thing?

I do believe that the courts will do the right thing and overturn Prop 8! :2wave:
The courts cannot "do the right thing" by overturning the legally expressed will of the voters, unless one wishes to believe that tyrannical governments are morally superior to republican government.

Courts that routinely do so should probably be disbanded.

It is my fervent hope that the courts will uphold the rule of law and refuse to overturn Proposition 8.

If someone would like to see the measure reversed, I refer them to the proper legislative channels.

In other words, such people should learn to make their case to their peers, not approach Unaccountable Authority as a lowly supplicant.

Democratic self government is messy, inefficient, often slow and cumbersome. It is also superior to any other known system. I invite my Respected Opponents, no matter how error prone or misguided to come and slog through its muddy expanses with me, and to forbear the marble clad and sterile halls of Dictatorial Rule.
 
Back
Top Bottom