Reader comments: Brown's anti-Prop. 8 argument gives power to judges, not people
91 comments | Read story
Same thing is starting to happen in Utah. Well maybe not starting, it is here!
Before people get to full of themselves, yes it does come from both sides of this debate. The real question is does it serve any purpose other then to make you feel superior.
If my understanding is correct, and it may not be, then Will's description of the affair is really not very accurate.
It should scare every american that judges have the power to overturn the voice of the people.
That depends on what people one is discussing. It certainly gives homosexual couples the power to have a legally recognized family. It gives them not only the name marriage but also the dignity of marriage. Unbeknownst to our opponents, that is giving power to the people.
I do agree, though, in general, with Mr. Will's constitutional sentiments. I believe we're just going to have to keep this discussion going. And we should keep it fair and square.
According to the constitution, if a right was not specifically written into the US constitution, it was given to the states to decide what to do. The people of California have spoken to agree with Propostion 8. It is now part of their state constitution, and defines legally what marriage is for the state of California.
Judges in California (and other states) are bound by oath to uphold the Constitution of the State and the US constitution. Unless there is a valid arguement that clearly shows that the law is in direct violation of the US constitution, the Proposition must stand until it is removed by another ammendment.
If a judge rules against it without quoting the US constitution, I would hope that all people in the state of California begin to protest their government for not following their state Constitution. This is not an issue of gay vs strait, but is now an issue of right vs wrong.
In the civil sense, marriage, for its entire history in the human sphere, has been defined as the contractual union of a man and a woman. The "right to marry" is the right for any man and any woman, of legal standing, to enter into this contract as currently defined. If a state wants to legalize, solemnize, or otherwise incentivize other kinds of unions (same-sex, polygamous, etc.), it may do so, but this does not require the redefinition/destruction of the traditional contract.
Please enumerate one legal protection or incentive, tax break, etc., that cannot be granted to a same-sex couple through an appropriately written civil unions statute. Giving same-sex couples the "dignity of marriage" is not a legal protection; it is an attempt to use the law as a bully club to force those of another opinion to accept homosexual behavior/unions as societally and morally equivalent to marriage. I don't think it will work any better than Roe v. Wade has forced those in the anti-abortion camp to change their stance (i.e., it hasn't).
There will come a day when the current MAJORITY voice on this matter will be the MINORITY, and everyone will finally be obliged to allow equality to mean equality.
This is why we need to be carefull who we place in these important positions as judges. Some eventually get the impression their judgement trumps all and their will is more important than that of the people.
If having a referendum on his issue was unconstitutional he should have expressed that when the vote was proposed, not now that the vote is over and the ammendment was accepted by the people it will be used to govern. Why even have the referendum if the people aren't allowed to decide issues like this as a community?
In California, majorities can't pas laws to enforce their bigotry. Our courts enforce our constitution.
Personally, I would rather see gay marriage passed in te next election. Every election gay marriage has greater support.
"Regardless of how you stand on the issue,
It should scare every american that judges have the power to overturn the voice of the people."
Haven't been reading the constitution much lately, have you? That is one of the roles of judges, to make sure that the majority does not ride roughshod over the minority. They are to JUDGE laws as constitutional or not. Geesh.
Before Prop 8 was passed, California passed an amendment to their constitution that forbid the government from discriminating against anyone because of the sexual orientation.
These two amendments are not compatable.
The judges must decide which is constitutional.
I did find laws, but not a State Constitution change. (The constitution is the foundation for the laws)
Gay marriage will happen. Old people always die, and their bigoted ideas die with them, it just takes time.
How about allowing a bisexual the opportunity to marry both a man and a woman?
My point is that if you are for gay marriage, and say that it discriminates against a group, then you must also embrace all non-traditional marriage arrangements that any other group has or wants. If you don't, then you too discriminate.
I fully support any type of non traditional marriage as long as it is between conscenting adults that are of sound mind. That doesn't mean someone can marry their dog, or their couch! It means that just because I don't personally understand why someone would be married to multiple people doesn't make it wrong. That is their business, not mine. Who am I to say that polygamy is wrong? As long as all people involved in the marriage are consenting adults, then the government should stay out of it, and let people live their own lives.
Since there is becoming more confusion about what "Marriage" means, some citizens felt the need to define it in a place where it couldn't be overruled (in the State Constitution).
To me, defining "marriage" is just like defining "Father" or "Mother" or "Child" or "Wife" or "Husband". These terms have some legal implications as well and you wouldn't think they would ever need to be defined but before long you may be suprised.
To me, these terms don't need to be defined, but to some they may. Someone may decide to call his child his 'father'. It could happend. If so, does the child then become the "Head of household" for tax purposes? Can the man then put himself on welfare because his father (the child) isn't employed?
When you start messing with the traditionally accepted definitions of simple things life can become very complicated and confusing.
So, this whole debate is not about rights or bigotry. It is about forcing those who find the gay lifestyle objectionable to accept it. This is going beyond tolerance, where you allow others to live and do as they want, but still believe those actions are wrong. This is trying to redefine what someone else's definition of right and wrong. Should the judges overturn Prop 8, they are not granting the gays the right to marry. They are granting a social status, something not protected as a right by any constitution in the United States.
And what do you have against my dog? Isn't she entitled to enjoy life to its fullest with whomever she wants?
How about the university course on the joys of man-boy relationships?
I seriously doubt that you have any concept of marriage beyond sexual license.
what exactly do you not understand about that?
and Mikey 11:36am - what do preverted man-boy have to do with anything?
you fail to realize that same-sex marriage has less to do with sex than heterosexual marriage. it's twisted little minds like yours that created this fiasco in the first place.
Now you are just arguing to argue. I don't think you should be allowed to marry your dog, because your dog can't conscent to you and say, yes I want to marry you. That is ridiculous. And when did I say that people with mental disabilities shouldn't be allowed to be married? As long as they can conscent and they are over 18, why not? And please, I have been in a relationship with the same person for 3 years now. We share a bank account, a home and families. My parents love him, and his parents love me. We have ups and downs just like everyone else, and I should be allowed to marry him, so don't bother me with your words of "I seriously doubt that you have any concept of marriage beyond sexual license" because I do.
I believe that if civil unions did, in fact, grant ALL of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities to EVERYONE there wouldn't be an issue.
well - to all you wannabe polygamists who think same-sex marriage falls into the same category, you need to rethink. same-sex marriage is between two people. we already have marriage contracts and laws to cover two-person marriages.
you want 3 or more person marriages? then you need to come up with a contract that all parties sign to ensure everyone's rights are covered.
all parties (all wives and the husband) would need to UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS and sign the contract, at the time of EACH marriage.
If one wife wanted a divorce, ALL assets would need to be liquidated to allow that person to take their fair share. The husband would have to pay child support, but his rights would be minimal, since the wife has 50% control of the children but the husband only has 20% (assuming 5 wives).
And how about the wife that makes a lot of money? she would have to share that with all the other wives. and the children could sue everyone to ensure they got their fair share of inheritance....
sounds like a heck of a reality show.
prop 8 prevents two people from forming a contract that two other people are allowed to form.
that's discrimination based on sexual orientation - and that's unconstitutional. (I think you can find that in the CA constitution...)
There have been those complaining that a simple majority is not a high enough standard to amend the CA constitution. A simple majority may be too low, but it is the current standard. If Californians want a higher standard, they can change the standard (not some activist judge or former governor Moonbeam!)
There are those in this thread (@GTO, poor conversation, anonymous) who complain about the same old arguments coming up that they claim to have debunked previously. If we don't know who you are because you won't use a constant pseudonym, we have little reason to believe that you actually debunked an argument; we're more inclined to believe that you have just dismissed it because you don't like it. You don't have to use your real name, just a consistent moniker so we know your history.
Any law professor should be able to explain what that entails.
For those of us who have taken California Con Law classes in law school at a CA institution, your attempt to wax philosophical on the US Constitution and the CA Constitution is amusing.
Nice try, but i suggest you stick to leaving comments based on 10 minute google searches.
Please provide a quote from the CA constitution and it's reference.
Where was the church when these countries were passing their GAY MARRIAGE laws? I did not hear a word from them when our neighbor Canada passed their law. Why California? Is it just too close to Utah?
The GLTB folks would like me to approve of them. We'll, I accept them, but to approve of their lifestyle is a whole other matter.
Live and let live.
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
Where is there anything that says you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation? Unless, once you are married, your spouse is property.
Please explain to somebody that is not a law student how any of that translates into anything that relates to gay marriage.
The way I read it, marriage is not included there, and was not in the CA constitution until Proposition 8 was voted on.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
- Thousands gather for Utes 3:53 p.m.
- Kennecott cuts 10% in Utah 3:29 p.m.
- Cost of living drops slightly 3:26 p.m.
- Honoring MLK with service 3:09 p.m.
- Charge in treasurer's race probe 3:08 p.m.
- Former Layton doc strikes deal 3:04 p.m.
- Wall Street rebounds 3:03 p.m.
- DeCaria tapped to be new judge 3:00 p.m.
- Shift from Iraq to Afghan war 2:58 p.m.
- British writer dies at 85 2:54 p.m.
- Service sales tax revisited253
- Letter: Don't legalize polygamy214
- Pulse of a (Cougar) nation183
- Man accidentally shoots toilet149
- Hanks: Mormons 'un-American'145
- Letter: Palin was persecuted127
- SLC cops Taser 14-year-old boy120
- Utes on parade111
- Brown's anti-Prop. 8 argument91
- U.'s Kruger will enter draft85
to Jackie 5:10pm actually. I'm quite sure this isn't an LDS blog. Fortunately…
The converter box is just part of the needed upgrade. Most antennas will need upgrading…
I don't disagree but you may want to think about this as well. She looked pretty…
I liked your thought--makes sense to me. Thanks.
I am just saying this but AF already did get beat twice if i remember so there goes…
the first is a list, then is gives a brief synopsis of EU, and the latter refers…
We have arrived at the point where we have lowered the bar for PRESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE…
Re: Anonymous 3:31pm Read much??
Are you sure this is a LDS blog? Reading it looks as though the LDS on here are all…
the benevolent government, how generous of them to give a special exemption to victims…