Posted on 11/19/2008 9:47:42 AM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO -- The central issue in the legal battle over Proposition 8 is whether the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is a state constitutional amendment, which can be passed by initiative, or a constitutional revision, which can't.
.. the question is whether the scope of a minority group's rights in California should be decided by the voters or the courts.
The state Supreme Court may decide today whether to dismiss or grant review of six lawsuits challenging Prop. 8, approved with a 52 percent majority on Nov. 4.
It's the same court that ruled 4-3 on May 15 that the California law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated fundamental rights of gays and lesbians under the state Constitution: the right of equal treatment and the right to marry the partner of one's choice.
The legal controversy now is much different. Rather than considering the constitutionality of prohibiting same-sex marriage, the court would decide whether inserting that prohibition into the Constitution was such a basic change that it amounted to more than an amendment.
Since California voters adopted the initiative process in 1911, they have been allowed to amend their Constitution by submitting a certain number of signatures and approving the change by a majority vote.
A constitutional revision, on the other hand, can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a new constitutional convention, both unlikely routes for a future Prop. 8.
Historically, the odds are against the challengers of Prop. 8's constitutionality. The court has allowed some ground-breaking constitutional changes to become law .. - the Proposition 13 tax limitations, restoration of the death penalty, legislative term limits and a pro-prosecution overhaul of evidence rules - and declared only two measures to be constitutional revisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I don’t think the supreme court in CA. should do
anything. If they do it’s judge recall time. I believe
this is a possibility.
That's right-- Preventing two people wearing leather masks walking on all fours is the same as slavery and therefore judicial activism is necessary.
On this, much as I hate to say it, but I agree with Mike Huckabee.
Hope for the best. Expect the worst.
I am trying to prepare for the court to set aside the election results thus making it clear to all that elections are a sham and that we are ruled by unelected autocrats. Any attempt to recall judges will be met by unified resistance on the part of the ruling officials in the state and by the media. It will cost tens-of-millions of dollars to get it done if it can be done at all.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Judges or Voters?
Who decides?
That’s a tough question.
Do the judges decide, or the voters who can also take out the judges?
All hail the black-robed demigods!
We don’ need no stinkin’ democracy!
The will of the voters is sacrosanct.
seems the court set this as a trap by telegraphing that homosexuals are somehow “normal” by the body of the constitution.
HOWEVER they failed to follow through by simply saying this BEFORE the referendum went to a vote.
I think it was hubris of the courts in thinking their personal isolated opinions would be ratified by normal thinking citizens.
They were not prepared for this result and now have to explain why it WAS ok to be a constitutional amendment before but now it is not ok to be a constitutional amendment.
propposition 187. overturned by the will of the black robe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.