Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
|
I'm not going to lie. I didn't read it, mainly because the California constitution isn't what's in question here.
Quote:
|
Because it violates the foundation of the document. Like you say above (paraphrasing), if it's mandated already by the constitution in question, you can't. As the CalConstitution already allows for equal rights and equal protection, you cannot simply remove that by vote. Some things are beyond the reach of democracy, and for good reason.
|
I'm feeling a sort of disconnect here. You seem to be ignoring why amendments exist in the first place or their purpose in existing. The courts initially said that, as per California's state constitution, that statutes denying the legal recognition of same-sex marriages was in violation of California's equal protection clause. Okay. So what do you do? You amend the constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. That involves no violation of California's equal protection clause, as it doesn't involve "discriminating" against gays, specifically (I believe we've been over this before). It merely limits the scope of marriages, which "discriminate" against anyone seeking to enter a marriage consisting of anything other than one man and one woman.
Anyway, as to your assertion that some things are beyond the democratic scope:
"Here we are dealing with the power of the people, the inalienable right to amend the Constitution."-- Joyce Kennard
Indeed, as I've said prior, this is a right explicitly guaranteed by the California constitution (Unlike the right to marry). What you, in essence, want is for an explicit right afforded to the general population to be discarded because you don't like it, in favor of a right never explicitly granted by the California state constitution. That makes little sense, and involves trampling on the rights of the many for the few.
Quote:
|
Some amendments are lawful, some are not. It's up to the SCOC to determine which is which. So we'll find out tomorrow.
|
The court's job is to make sure that
laws are in-line with the Constitution. Amendments to the constitution, by their very nature, have to be lawful because it is upon the Constitution that laws are based.