In response to S1owhands post and related link.
What is quoted is only part of the equation or law presented there.

If you take the time to view the link you will see that there is a significant difference between a "ammendment" and a "revision" of the State Constitution.

Specifically notice Section 3. It states that the electorate may "ammend" the Constitution through the initiative process. This initiative process is what brought Proposition 8 into being.

The previous sections make it very clear that the Legislature may also propose "ammendments" by a 2/3 majority without using the initiative process.

Further, what is crystal clear is that only the Legislature may put forth to the electorate (voters) a "revision" to the Constitution by a 2/3 vote.

In the case of either an "ammendment" or "revision" the electorate is then to be the deciding factor subject to a Constitutional review by the Court.

One of the main arguments before the Court is wether or not stripping away rights, liberties and pursuits that the Court previously ruled as valid are a "ammendment" or a "revision" to the State Constitution.

Pro 8 advocates argue that it is just an "ammendment" while No on 8 advocates argue that it is a dramatic revision to the basic civil liberties that the Court already validated when they struck down Proposition 22.

So this issue is very much in contention.
Only a 2/3 vote of the Legislature can bring such a proposition to the electorate if it is in fact a revision.
This was not done as only the initiative process was used.

If the Court determines it simply an ammendment, the proposition will stand until further legal challenges are mounted against it and won. No on 8 supporters are already preparing thier campaign for such an instance.

If the Court determines it to be a revision then the proposition will be invalidated.

Prop 8 supporters would then need to lobby the Legislature to get a 2/3 vote in favor and once again put it forth to the electorate.

Is it an ammendment or a revision?
The Supreme Court will decide but it definetly is one of the defining issues of the challenge against Propostion 8.

Think2deep brings up the discussion in the form of "corporate mergers." This is interesting and maybe more to the point that government really should stay out of determing who can and can not marry.

The Federal Government, although regulating estates, taxes and the like may be advantagous to the general public, should not be in charge of determining who should be able to marry and who should not.

Further... religions should most definetly not have any say in what consenting adults can choose in the context of marriage outside of thier own congregations.

This is why the original writers of the Constitution and specifically Thomas Jefferson wanted a seperation of Church and State. In those days they were ruled by a Church and saw the corruption and inequalities. They did not want that for thier new found freedoms and developing country.

If one chooses to be married in a religious ceremony that is their freedom of choice and protected by the Constitution. To have religions dictate who can marry and who can not... is not a Constitutional right afforded religions.

The issue of the word "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions" is that the Federal Government and most states do not recogize civil unions and the benefits and protections offered to heterosexual couples.

This is a double standard and an example of inequality, prejudice and discrimination still thriving within our country.

Religions do not own, or have any valid claim, to the "traditional" marriage they try to defend. Marriage is not exclusive to religion.
If it was... then what religion has the only correct way of doing it?
What religion do you belong to? Is yours the valid one?

Facts are that the most traditional marriage in our known history is polygamy. I do not see anyone advocating traditional marriage on those terms.

Polygamy was practiced by more populations and through more recorded time than the "traditional" one man one woman marriage touted as traditional today.

What is traditional marriage?
This concept has changed over time and is likely a cultural interpretation or difference among cultures as it remains today.

I understand clearly that some groups of people try to legislate thier religion into law. I understand that some feel the obligation to let others see their "light" and want to scourge the earth of what offends thier beliefs.

Not being offended by fellow free citizens who act peacefully and cause no loss of ones own civil liberties is not a right written into the Constitution.

RW

well, i disagree with RW's point of view i think.

it is clear that either the Legislature or the electorate
may make amendments or revisions to the constitution. the
section i cited merely shows that this is legally allowed.

there are different requirements for the Legislature
versus the Prop 8 route but either is a valid route to
amend. Prop 8 appears to be a legal amendment according
to CA law.

prop 22 was struck because it was deemed unconstitutional.

now, since the passing of Prop 8, Prop 8 has become part
of the constitution in a constitutionally valid process as
cited above. This was always the strategy of the Prop 8
supporters and it looks like they have succeeded.

i think they will find that prop 8 is an amendment because
it did not change the pre-existing language of the constitution
but rather added to it.

All U.S. Citizens Who Have Not Had Their Rights Revoked are Equally Free to Vote, and Vote they Did!

yeah, but their vote didn't count lol.

Isn't that what folks always say when their party loses, on all sides?

no one has the right to decide who someone marries regardless of political party or religious beliefs/non-beliefs.

that goes against separation of church and state

last I heard...prop 8 was overturned by the CA supreme court. was there more?

Gee...so, had the country voted on Emancipation Proclamation do you think it would have passed?

Had it failed would that make slavery right? Because it is the will of the people?

The founders worried, and rightly so, about a country where the majority would decide the rights of the minority and they made this country a representational democracy to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The cat may be out of the bag folks. Even Ken Star concedes that the unforeseen end result of Prop 8 may be the end of "marriage" by the state and a new era of civil unions for all.

Personally I think the state should get out of the marriage business and only perform civil unions. Let those who wish to marry do so in a church, mosque, synagogue, wooded glen or any other place their religion deems appropriate and they can call it a marriage.

I can always depend on your to get right to the point, and to put it better than I could. I would never have thought of those points. Thanks Lynann

I'm all for civil unions provided they make them with FULL marriage benefits. As it stands now civil unions are only a half assed marriage. SOme states or businesses don't even consider a civil union binding and will not count your "spouse" as a spouse.

This means that you and your spouse are not entitled to the same benefits as an actual married couple. It does not, as was pointed out, contain the word marriage and thus is not truly considered a marriage by some.

I, for one, do not care about marriage as I never plan to get married, but for those that wish to wed they should have the right to marry if they so desire. This does not mean that they have to marry in a church, a jp would suffice.

in texas we have common law marriages. but those have to have a legal divorce though. the reason is because common law marriages, when they break up, will have the same arguments (child support/custody...property etc) as the other marriages

i still have no problem with same sex marriages

Slow1hand quote: "it is clear that either the Legislature or the electorate
may make amendments or revisions to the constitution."

Please note that this is not accurate as stated. Please revisit the link and read Section 3. No mention of revisions only ammendments.

For clarification:

The electorate may vote on either ammendments or revisions.
Ammendments may be brought to the electorate via the Inititave process as Proposition 8 was.

Revisions, on the other hand can only be brought to the electorate by a prior 2/3 vote of the Legislature, thus approving its presentation to the electorate.

Thus if the Supreme Court finds this propostion to be simply an ammendment, it will stand.

If the Court finds it too sweeping of a change concerning the civil liberties and equal protection clauses within the Constitution that it is considered a revision of said liberties and protections, then it will be invalidated because the law concerning "revising" the Constitution was not followed. (the Legislature did not hold a prior 2/3 vote approving a revision to go forth to the electorate)

In other words people in the state of California may get together and propose Constitutional ammendments via the initiative process but they may not legally propose revisions to the Constitution through the initiative process.

Revisions require a prior 2/3 vote by the Legislature before being presented to the electorate.

The initiative process can not legally present, to the electorate, "revisions" to the Constitution.

So, in part, what is before the Court is wether or not this proposition is simply an ammendment or a revision to/of the Constitution.

This is a compelling issue before the Court concerning this proposition.
Deciding on this issue alone will determine wether or not the proposition stands.

In the arguments before the Court, the Court seemed wary, skeptical and hesitant to over turn the vote of the majority concerning the proposition.

The Court did seem sympathetic to uphold the approximately 19.000 same sex marriages perfomed while it was legal under their previous ruling however.

It could turn out that even if this propostion is upheld... there will still be approximately 19,000 legally married same sex couples in California.

At that point I suppose the Christian Right could simply wait for all of these married couples to die to scour the earth of thier "sin" but I truly sense that long before then the laws will change to provide equal rights, liberties and pursuits of happiness for all American citizens as the Constitution intended without religious interference.

The younger generations are much more accepting and tolerant of people being different than themselves. Recent polls show that Christianity is slowly erroding in its majority in our country.

These trends bode well for those who support equal rights among citizens.

Christians will continue to fight this battle and oppressed minorities will continue to fight on as well.

It has already been a long and hard fought battle between freedoms and ideaologies... much like the Civil War when the Confederacy fought to keep Blacks in slavery.

There will be dissapointments, hurts and casualties on both sides until the issue is finally settled.
It may take generations to finally be put completely to rest even as the entire white/black issue is still a work in progress in some states and minds.

Whatever the court decides... the battle will likely go on for a bit longer.

I know that both sides await the decision with passion and will mount counter attacks.

Me... I took on this issue simply because I truly believe that the Constitution of the United States of America really does stand for equal rights, liberties and pursuits of happiness.

RW

i was referring to sec 4. it was in my earlier post but i'll repost it here.

sec. 3 states specifically that the electorate may amend.

sec 4. specifically states that electors may make revisions to the constitution

here ya go...

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If
provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election
conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.

seems pretty accurate and clear to me....

from http://law.justia.com/california/constitution/article_18.html

it can stil be overturned if the supreme court decided that the amendment or revision makes the constitution unconstitutional.

Everyone screams for gays to have rights, yet they can't see that the rights of the voters are being squashed by men and women in black robes. Then we hear the tired old argument to "count all the votes" every couple of years. Well, when Prop 8 is overturned, those who voted won't have their votes counted, even though individuals divvied up enough signatures on petitions to place the proposition on the California ballot, which is a legal process.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

Amending the Constitution is not illegal, that's why they're called Constitutional Amendments. What is outrageous is a bunch of justices decide that what the people have decided in a free and fair election is illegal, only because the people actually used their Constitutionally given right to vote.

If people are for civil unions, they should gather up enough petitions and put a proposition on the ballot. If it goes down in defeat, don't run to the courts and have the results of the measure overturned.

That's exactly what has happened each time a ban on gay marriage has come up for a vote in California. Those who fought against the ban didn't like the outcome that they resorted to stifling the will of the voters of that state.

Proposition 8 was an Amendment to the California Constitution.

What you seem to ignore is that after the vote has taken place that it has been those who didn't like the final results in each instance, to resort to the California Supreme Court to overturn the result of the electors, resulting in votes not even counting on both sides of the issue.

You're citing the part of the Calfornia Constitution that demonstrates just what the process of petitioning a ballot initiative entails. Which has nothing to do with equal rights under the law.

But what you are supporting is the will of the people be stifled by men and women in black robes.

I don't get it at all. They didn't vote on your rights to marry.



The more Gay/Lesbian parents that get married, the less starving children there will be in 3rd world countries.


If you take away their marriage rights, you take away the right for them to adopt, so you also take away the right for a defenseless child to live.


Great job.



It's called the Treaty of Tripoli. We are not and will never be a religion dominated nation.

Right. Operative word being "or".

The differece between the two... Prop 8 is an Amendment and here's why....

To be a revision, it would have to already be in the Constitution. A revision could mean something as simple as a single word gets removed. An Amendment means a word, sentence, paragraph or whole new section gets INSERTED, ADDED or AMENDED into the Constitution.