Another sign or example why this country is going downhill

[kknudson]

This has nothing to do with the issue, no comments about that.
BUT what happened.

OK California VOTERS approved proposition 8 (or whatever), defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
So now two women that want to get married have some high end lawyers suing the state declaring it is unconstitutional.

I am not commenting on the issue.

My complaint is that the VOTERS made a decision, I kinda thought thats what makes a democracy and the women and their lawyers are suing to overturn what the VOTERS decided.

I have more comments on this, but I'll leave them out.

What do you think ?

The whole "proposition" system in CA has resulted in some very strange laws. There is a reason that the US doesn't have direct democracy.

[The Clk Man]

A marriage is between a Man and a Woman. That is all.

[Chas H]

If the voters approve a proposition that's unconstitutional, it's still unconstitutional.
I think at one time the voters in California also approved the state constitution, along with the federal constitution.

[POS]

They're free to sue, I guess, but the voters have spoken. Probably will end up with the two plaintiffs spending a lot of money, going to a lot of parties, then losing the case anyways.

PS - I'm taking the liberty of changing your topic title to:

Another sign or example why CALIFORNIA is going downhill

PSS - We don't have these problems in Texas.

[AustinsCE]

Just another mindless, soap opera distraction.

[kknudson]

Originally Posted by The Clk Man

A marriage is between a Man and a Woman. That is all.

No comments on the issue please.

Originally Posted by Chas H

If the voters approve a proposition that's unconstitutional, it's still unconstitutional.
I think at one time the voters in California also approved the state constitution, along with the federal constitution.

Constitutional or not the Majority rules, I would consider the voter approval an implied change to the constitution. (I know there is a big HUGE process to change the constitution. But times change, with what it takes to amend the constitution, times will have changed again before it can can approved.)

The people spoke, deal with it.

Thats how I feel.

[Chas H]

Originally Posted by kknudson

No comments on the issue please.



Constitutional or not the Majority rules, I would consider the voter approval an implied change to the constitution. (I know there is a big HUGE process to change the constitution. But times change, with what it takes to amend the constitution, times will have changed again before it can can approved.)

The people spoke, deal with it.

Thats how I feel.

You're wrong and it don't matter how you feel. The people cannot summarily amend the constitution. There is a process described in the constitution by which amendments can be made.

[catmandoo62]

they could save lots of money and headaches by just coming to iowa and getting married.

[strelnik]

Originally Posted by Chas H

You're wrong and it don't matter how you feel. The people cannot summarily amend the constitution. There is a process described in the constitution by which amendments can be made.

The way the system works, the judiciary is supposed to have the ability to overturn laws, as part of checks and balance. However, once the law makes it into a constitution, agreed upon by 3/4 of the states, that's it.

So some people have some work to do...

On this issue this is soap opera, I agree that I don't care. This issue is about personal validation and social approval.

[mpolli]

I think it is about whether it is OK to have the majority vote on the rights of the minority.

[okyoureabeast]

I heard the reason why the measure passed was because of a very large, but silent mormon population within the state.

Either way I think their budget problem is much more comical in my eyes.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by kknudson

No comments on the issue please.



Constitutional or not the Majority rules, I would consider the voter approval an implied change to the constitution.

The people spoke, deal with it.

Thats how I feel.

You may feel that way but your feelings are largely irrelevant to the functioning of the US political system. There is a thing called a Bill of Rights. The people simply cannot vote to abolish freedom of speech, or to establish a religion.
The question is whether the relevant judicial body thinks the banning of gay marriage violates the Constitution or not. It's a very risky political strategy for gays given the current Supreme Court. It might set back gay civil rights a couple of generations.

[Diesel4me]

These people that think that the majority can vote to take way the rights of a minority amuse me. This will all work out to my satisfaction in due time I have no doubt.

Prop. 8 is a speed bump on the route to an inevitable conclusion, kind of like DADT but it won't be around that long.

[Ara T.]

Majority rules? Really. Huh, thought this was a republic not a democracy. If the majority can break the constitution that is no different than a monarch who would do the same.