Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
Not really sure what this means. But in our country we have a representative democracy at the federal level. The peoples wishes are carried out by the elected representative of a district. If the people aren't happy with said representative they can vote in one who will carry out their wishes. On a more local level there are ballot initiatives, which is what prop 8 was. The will of the people of California was carried out. I don't agree with their decision, but I don't live in California so I can't do anything about it. That's my only point. I'm not arguing against Gay marriage, only against your premise that the will of the people is irrelevant.
|
Except that in your country, there's also a Constitution that provides the basis for those laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that every law passed must be in accordance with both the federal and the relevant state Constitution.
The Supreme Court of California found that Proposition 8 did not violate the state Constitution, but that says nothing of the federal one.
The argument as I understand it is based on the fourteenth amendment; specifically, this clause:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
Emphasis, of course, mine.
It could arguably be said that Propisition 8 is abridging the privileges of homosexuals by denying them the right to marry.
Some folks seem to think this is a frivolous challenge, akin to a temper tantrum. I'll be the first to admit that I am not an expert in these matters, but it seems to me based on the above quote that there is definitely a case to be made. Whether that case holds water will be for the Supreme Court to decide.