California and Mob Rule

[MrFun]

Today, California Supreme Court decided to uphold Proposition 8 and caved in to pressure of mob rule. The only exception to this, is that court has ruled that 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who had married before Prop. 8 will retain their legal marriage status.

Civil rights of minority groups should not be subjected to popular vote.

[Ben Kenobi]

Democracy

Rule by judicial dictatorship.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

[OzzyKP]

I guess the question is whether Prop 8 modified the CA Constitution or not. I don't recall. If it was just a statute, then surely the Supreme Court should have overturned it as with past laws. But if it was an amendment, then I'm not sure how the Supreme Court charged with upholding the Constitution could overturn part of it.

Either way it sucks. I'm sure in a few years thanks to changing demographics and changing attitudes, voters will repeal Prop 8 anyhow. I guess just be patient.

[Lorizael]

This is a hilarious thread.

MrFun bashing democracy and Ben Kenobi hailing it when this is an act of the judiciary.

[Ben Kenobi]

Either way it sucks. I'm sure in a few years thanks to changing demographics and changing attitudes, voters will repeal Prop 8 anyhow. I guess just be patient.

Now they have to change the constitution. If they want it fine, put it up, but the people have had their say.

I sure wish they had done the same up here and let the people decide.

America.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Today, California Supreme Court decided to uphold Proposition 8 and caved in to pressure of mob rule. The only exception to this, is that court has ruled that 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who had married before Prop. 8 will retain their legal marriage status.

Civil rights of minority groups should not be subjected to popular vote.

As I've been twittering, I think the MSM has really fallen down on the job. To take a question of whether a certain initiative is an amendment or revision to the Constitution of the State of California and say it "caved in the pressure of mob rule" is being completely ignorant of the situation. Completely.

[Lorizael]

A meaningless part of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

A meaningful part of the Constitution:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Dinner]

I guess the question is whether Prop 8 modified the CA Constitution or not.

It was a constitutional change. The state constitution says that minor changes can be made directly by the people using the proposition system but that major changes have to be made via the legislature and governor. The court, rather wrongly in my mind, decided that enshrining inequality was a minor change. That's horse ****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's such horse**** that it was a 6-1 decision where the majority seemed a bit upset it had to rule that way .

An excerpt:

“[O]ur analysis in determining whether a particular constitutional enactment is a revision or an amendment must be both quantitative and qualitative in nature. For example, an enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also. In illustration, the parties herein appear to agree that an enactment which purported to vest all judicial power in the Legislature would amount to a revision without regard either to the length or complexity of the measure or the number of existing articles or sections affected by such change.” ...

From a quantitative standpoint, it is obvious that Proposition 8 does not amount to a constitutional revision. The measure adds one 14-word section to article I -- a section that affects two other sections of article I by creating an exception to the privacy, due process, and equal protection clauses contained in those two sections as interpreted in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases. Quantitatively, Proposition 8 unquestionably has much less of an effect on the preexisting state constitutional scheme than virtually any of the previous constitutional changes that our past decisions have found to constitute amendments rather than revisions....

[As to the qualitiative prong of the amendment/revision analysis,] the numerous past decisions of this court that have addressed this issue all have indicated that the type of measure that may constitute a revision of the California Constitution is one that makes “far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan,” or, stated in slightly different terms, that “substantially alter[s] the basic governmental framework set forth in our Constitution.” ... Proposition 8 works no such fundamental change in the basic governmental plan or framework established by the preexisting provisions of the California Constitution -- that is, “in [the government's] fundamental structure or the foundational powers of its branches.” ...

I realize people are pissy at Prop 8, but trying to say that it fundamentally changes California's government is quite a massive stretch.

[OzzyKP]

It was a constitutional change. The state constitution says that minor changes can be made directly by the people using the proposition system but that major changes have to be made via the legislature and governor. The court, rather wrongly in my mind, decided that enshrining inequality was a minor change. That's horse ****.

Ah, interesting.

[MrFun]

As I've been twittering, I think the MSM has really fallen down on the job. To take a question of whether a certain initiative is an amendment or revision to the Constitution of the State of California and say it "caved in the pressure of mob rule" is being completely ignorant of the situation. Completely.

There should have been a plaintiff case brought forward that would have challenged the constitutionality of denying a minority group an equal right to marry.

I wasn't ignorant of the case that was actually brought forward on question of amendment versus revision. My anger is that they completely dodged the question of whether or not Proposition 8 violates equal rights protection.

[Dinner]

It may only be 14 words but it radically changed the meaning of the equal protection clause. That's why I say it was actually a major change.

[Drake Tungsten]

Today, California Supreme Court decided to uphold Proposition 8 and caved in to pressure of mob rule.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wasn't ignorant of the case that was actually brought forward on question of amendment versus revision. My anger is that they completely dodged the question of whether or not Proposition 8 violates equal rights protection.

You should take it to the surpremes, and ask if age discrimination is ok wrt to marriage, and whether marriage falls under equal protection.

That would be an interesting case. If it does, you can't discriminate based on age...

[BlackCat]