View Single Post
Old 05-25-2009, 02:51 PM   #294 (permalink)
Willravel
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser View Post
I'm not going to lie. I didn't read it, mainly because the California constitution isn't what's in question here.
You're asking specific questions about my state's constitution. I figure that the best place to start is to actually read it. It's a damn fine piece of writing. You'd likely find the section I specifically cited (it's really not a long read at all) to be relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser View Post
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.
So amendments can do anything regardless of existing law and legal precedent? I think it's time that we have an amendment that says all the federal funds only go to California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Pensylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia, since we have controlling votes in the House. Or just 26 states in the Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser View Post
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.
You seem to be under the impression that an amendment can do anything. It can't. There are limitations. And it has nothing to do with what I like and everything to do with the law and our enumerated principles.
Willravel is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360