Constitutional change in California
When Liberals Lose…
The first course of action is to threaten those that oppose them, physically attack anyone identified specifically as supporting the opposing winning side. Simultaneously they head to the courts to declare that people, that is the voters, have no right to amend the constitution.
Well, hush ma mouf! All these years I labored under the misconception that was how constitutions were amended. Whadda know!
Here’s the definitive word from the California Supreme Court of Clowns:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California’s highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.
Archived in: CA Courts, Gay Marriage, Liberalism, Progressives, Prop 8All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change. (emphasis mine)
November 19, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Trackback
7 comments
hopefully all those disturbing people will be forced to get a divorce.
I should know better than to step into this… but I was actually looking this up last night to understand the details and think its interesting stuff.
The California constitution itself defines two separate types of changes to it. “Amendments” - changes to one provision - or “revisions” - significant fundamental changes.
Amendments can be passed by a simply majority of voters. While revisions must be passed by 2/3rds of each house of the California legislature.
So while you wish to imply that the idea that ‘voters alone’ not having the authority to do something is ridiculous, it is indeed the California Constitution itself that says that voters (*alone*) do *not* have the ability to alter the constitution fundamentally. Rather they must go through 2/3rds of their elected representatives.
This is not unusual. The US constitution of course requires 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of states.
Liberal or conservative - prop 8 aside - I would think we sould agree that you wouldn’t want 50% + 1 of US voters being able to alter the fundamentals of the US constitution. A greater consensus is needed. Same thing in California.
Now the open question before the Cali SC is whether Prop 8 is an amendment or a greater revision. That one I won’t touch with a 10 foot pole.
The voters in CA don’t want the unelected courts amending the Constitution either. The gays stuck their genitals into the blender on this one for the old adage “that which is not required is forbidden” will come to roost. They are trespassing on so many others freedoms because they don’t like an outcome has repercussions.
That passage of Prop 8 might just force a 2/3 vote of the Reps.
The greater question is just who in hell gives the state(s) the right to license marriages anyway? Religions have held this prerogative long before there were states. (read governments) States jumped in because they saw a tax to be charged. Atheists don’t care about the churches, they can shack up.
Don’t bother with welfare or paternity argument, liberals made that a joke. Pop out as many kids as you want and the cash register go kaching.
State sanction of marriage, if you discount the old financial reasons, inheritances, male authority…all that stuff…it’s claimed that it protects children and women from the kind of thing we’re seeing in certain communities today. Irresponsible males, illegitimacy, dependency and female/child destitution. All of this is arguable, but the stats are there anyway.
The honest campaign for gays, in my view, is to remove the state’s role in the entire business of “marriage”, rather than attempt to redefine it. For one thing, the state could then address the consequences of redefinition…polygamy, polyandry and polyamory, incest (all are coming) from the standpoint of social risk rather than some vague morality.
In my view, gay activists know this but many of them (a) want to get even, and (b) don’t want the family cohesion and social matters considered in the courts or with the bureaucrats, which would happen once you removed state sanction of marriage entirely.
I’m kind’ve doubtful that a 2/3rd vote of the Reps in Ca would be successful. Enough districts in Ca are in San Fran, LA, and other metro areas that I would be modestly surprised if the votes were able to be mustered. But, I’m sure someone out there has a lot better count of the Ca state legislatures positions than my pure guess.
…”financial reasons, inheritances”…all can be addressed by contractual agreements, reduced to writing and witnessed which are binding outside a marriage. Not even a Civil Union is necessary.
A simple will in fact takes care of most problems, and a tenancy in common rather than a joint tenancy will handle real property.
Keep the state out of one’s business! The less they can meddle, the less they can tax and take.
In fact, if you are terminal, you should have transferred property before two years so to avoid the anticipation of death catch. Quietly convert other holdings to cash and shut up. You will have to show something, but the government doesn’t know everything, unless you play the idiot.
Spend bank accounts down showing a decline of assets.
Bail yourself out!
good words hotspur and vw. another reason i come here is to enhance my vocabulary.
yes, there is too much law around marriage and divorce.