• 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!

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

RightinNYC said:
lol

Either you consider gay marriage a constitutional right, or you don't.

If you do, then every one of these states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

If you don't, then no constitutional right was taken away in any situation.

What CA did was exactly the same as what everyone else did - the CA court just got there before the legislature did.
Click to expand...


Whether I, you or anyone else personally consider something to be a "Constitutional Right" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, that is something that is either for the Courts or the Legislature in the form of an Amendment.
The California Constitutional right recognized gay marriage as a Constitutional right which was then eliminated by a 50% +1 popular vote. A dangerous precedent for other Constitutional rights. But Prop 8 remains the only time where a Constitutional right has been eliminated by a popular vote.
 
RightinNYC said:
l
What CA did was exactly the same as what everyone else did - the CA court just got there before the legislature did.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you are referring to here. The California Legislature TWICE passed legislation allowing gay marriage...so if that's what you are referring to, once again you are wrong. The Legislature got there before the Court.
The legislation was vetoed by our Republican Governor, who incidentally said it should rest in a decision by the California Supreme Court.
 
disneydude said:
Whether I, you or anyone else personally consider something to be a "Constitutional Right" is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, that is something that is either for the Courts or the Legislature in the form of an Amendment.
The California Constitutional right recognized gay marriage as a Constitutional right which was then eliminated by a 50% +1 popular vote. A dangerous precedent for other Constitutional rights. But Prop 8 remains the only time where a Constitutional right has been eliminated by a popular vote.
Click to expand...

Again, only in the most convoluted way imaginable. The Prop 8 was effectively the exact same thing as the dozens of other amendments passed by other states. The only thing that's unique about it is that it came AFTER a state SC said that gay marriage was a constitutional right. It's nowhere near the groundbreaking thing that you're making it out to be.

disneydude said:
Not really sure what you are referring to here. The California Legislature TWICE passed legislation allowing gay marriage...so if that's what you are referring to, once again you are wrong. The Legislature got there before the Court.
The legislation was vetoed by our Republican Governor, who incidentally said it should rest in a decision by the California Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

You know that if legislation isn't signed by the governor, it doesn't become law, right?
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, only in the most convoluted way imaginable. The Prop 8 was effectively the exact same thing as the dozens of other amendments passed by other states. The only thing that's unique about it is that it came AFTER a state SC said that gay marriage was a constitutional right. It's nowhere near the groundbreaking thing that you're making it out to be.



You know that if legislation isn't signed by the governor, it doesn't become law, right?
Click to expand...

Who's the one being "convoluted"....in the theoretical and legal sense of the word what I am saying is completely accurate. You are making an argument, that I don't disagree with in theory, but taken to the topic being discussed, is simply wrong and convoluted. Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be
 
disneydude said:
Who's the one being "convoluted"....in the theoretical and legal sense of the word what I am saying is completely accurate. You are making an argument, that I don't disagree with in theory, but taken to the topic being discussed, is simply wrong and convoluted. Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be
Click to expand...

Er...this is exactly my point.
 
disneydude said:
Thank you. Then you admit that you were wrong in your original assessment.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and am coming up blank.

Assuming that we agree that "Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be," then the logical conclusion of that statement is that gay marriage either is or is not a constitutional right.

As I pointed out already, if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then every one of the aforementioned states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

If you don't consider gay marriage a constitutional right, then no constitutional right was taken away by majority vote.

You're wrong regardless of the way you look at it.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and am coming up blank.

Assuming that we agree that "Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be," then the logical conclusion of that statement is that gay marriage either is or is not a constitutional right.

As I pointed out already, if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then every one of the aforementioned states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

If you don't consider gay marriage a constitutional right, then no constitutional right was taken away by majority vote.

You're wrong regardless of the way you look at it.
Click to expand...

I think this is what Disneydude is trying to articulate:

The California Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right. The referendum took that away.

Has it ever happened anywhere else that a Constitutional right was declared legally, and then taken away by majority vote?
 
Alex said:
I think this is what Disneydude is trying to articulate:

The California Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right. The referendum took that away.

Has it ever happened anywhere else that a Constitutional right was declared legally, and then taken away by majority vote?
Click to expand...

As I noted before:

Prop 8 was effectively the exact same thing as the dozens of other amendments passed by other states. The only thing that's unique about it is that it came AFTER a state SC said that gay marriage was a constitutional right. It's nowhere near the groundbreaking thing that you're making it out to be.
Click to expand...

It may be true that this was the first time that a referendum was passed after a court declared that there was a constitutional right, but that's irrelevant to the larger question of whether "constitutional rights" can be and have been "revoked" by a majority vote.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion and am coming up blank.

Assuming that we agree that "Something doesn't become a Constitutional right because you, I or anyone else believes it should be," then the logical conclusion of that statement is that gay marriage either is or is not a constitutional right.

As I pointed out already, if gay marriage is a constitutional right, then every one of the aforementioned states took away a constitutional right by majority vote.

If you don't consider gay marriage a constitutional right, then no constitutional right was taken away by majority vote.

You're wrong regardless of the way you look at it.
Click to expand...

What your analysis fails to take into consideration is that there are State Constitutions and a Federal Constititution.
None of the states, other than California, that passed referendums had a ruling from their Supreme Court that recognized gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Thus, none of those referendums took away rights that were deemed Constitutional by the highest Courts.
California on the otherhand had ruled that prohibitions against gay marriage violated the California Constitution, thus recognizing gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Prop 8 eliminated that Constitutional right by a simple majority 50%+1 vote. Something that has never been done in the United State before and setting a dangerous precedent (at least in California) that Constitutional rights are subject to the whim of a simple majority. That should be scary to anyone who values Constitutional rights.
 
disneydude said:
What your analysis fails to take into consideration is that there are State Constitutions and a Federal Constititution.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the difference, but I didn't bother going into this in depth because I'm unaware of any distinction between the CA constitution and those of the other states that have passed such a referendum that would warrant distinguishing them from each other on this issue. The clauses that the CA SC based their decision on are fundamentally identical to that of the USC.

None of the states, other than California, that passed referendums had a ruling from their Supreme Court that recognized gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Thus, none of those referendums took away rights that were deemed Constitutional by the highest Courts.
Click to expand...

Again, as I've repeated several times, this is irrelevant to the larger question.

California on the otherhand had ruled that prohibitions against gay marriage violated the California Constitution, thus recognizing gay marriage as a Constitutional right. Prop 8 eliminated that Constitutional right by a simple majority 50%+1 vote. Something that has never been done in the United State before and setting a dangerous precedent (at least in California) that Constitutional rights are subject to the whim of a simple majority.
Click to expand...

While you may be technically right that this has not happened in this context before, you're completely wrong that this set any precedent. In terms of the ability of citizens to modify constitutional rights by majority vote, this case was absolutely indistinguishable from that of the other states.

You keep on avoiding my main point: If gay marriage is a "constitutional right," then how do you characterize the decisions in other states to amend their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage?

That should be scary to anyone who values Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

You're free to be scared by this, but it's not even remotely new.
 
RightinNYC said:
You're free to be scared by this, but it's not even remotely new.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that now only is this completely new, it is groundbreaking and sets a very scary precedent. If the Constitutional Rights of individuals can be taken away by a simple majority 50%+1 vote, what is to stop other iniatives to be passed? Nothing.
One of the main concepts of a Constitution is that there are certain rights/privileges that are so important that they cannot be taken away by a simple majority...often phrased - as a protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. This is why the US Constitution and most State Constitutions require a larger percentage (often 2/3rds) and provide safeguards that a Constitution cannot be changed except by going through a Constitiutional Amendment process. The initiative process is sadly abused here in California. Special interest groups of all political persuasions often place things on the ballot that are worded in such a way that uneducated people are confused about what they are voting for. To think that Constitutional Rights are now subject to this same process is frankly very disturbing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom