Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I'm asking questions to better understand. I've also read the decision but my question lies outside of it, given that it wasn't brought up to begin with. To be fair the attorneys didn't bring up federal constitutional rights as well. So their omission doesn't mean it's not a good argument to use. I'm simply wanting to know if my proposal had legal merit given that churches were funding the passing of the proposition for religious reasons. I also brought up the Dover trial because the issue would be similar if we accept my initial proposal.
Here was the gravaman/issue to decide, from the text:
At the same time, as numerous decisions of this court have explained,
although the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt amendments to the California Constitution, under its governing provisions that process may not beused to revise the state Constitution. (See, e.g., McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336.)
Petitioners’ principal argument rests on the claim that Proposition 8 should be viewed as a constitutional revision rather than as a constitutional amendment, and that this change in the state Constitution therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.
As we know, the legislature outlawed same sex marriages, the CA SC ruled that violated the CA Constitution, the voters put it on the ballot and the complaint made it's way to the courts and in effect it overturned the other CA SC ruling, now, here, they had to rule if it was proper.
There was NO federal argument/element because it was a state issue.
Aside from that, the US SC has already ruled same sex marriage prohibitions do not violate the federal constitution, way back in 1971. They may entertain it again, as the ruling was a "Summary opinion".
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
is not the same as "I've also read the decision". Not by any stretch...
I've read most of it and yes I haven't read the entire thing. Will my question be dismissed on the basis of not having read the entire thing?
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Means that you wasted your time searching for something that you already knew isn't going to be there...
It was because I did that as well as listened in on the oral arguments that I found that out to begin with. There was no wasted time.
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
OK, OK.... Maybe you can post a few more details about your proposal... That might entice someone to reply and or clarify...
I'm not an expert on the law but given the religious push behind the proposition by Churchs and other religious organization it striked me as odd that there would be no argument that is used by opponents of the proposition regarding religion-state violations. I also brought up the Dover trial because it seemed to reflect a similar issue that could be paralleled (at least how I see it) in some significant way. Why would a religious push in the Dover trial qualify as religious intrusion when even their arguments were being framed in a secular way but not proposition 8 which is also being framed in a secular way?
Quote:
Quoting
BOR
Aside from that, the US SC has already ruled same sex marriage prohibitions do not violate the federal constitution, way back in 1971.
Thanks. That would be something worth reading. What name is the case under?
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
Thanks. That would be something worth reading. What name is the case under?
Here is the Baker decision from the MN SC.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Expansion: As you will read, it was a summary opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson