|
Prop 8: Are you yes or no on banning same-sex marriage?
Share
Email
Print
CommentRelated
August 29th, 2008
August 24th, 2008
August 23rd, 2008
August 19th, 2008
Proposition 8, the "Limit on Marriage, Constitutional Amendment," on the November ballot, calls for an amendment to the state constitution, declaring that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Do you support this proposition, or do you oppose it?
Do you support this proposition, or do you oppose it?
(Note: napavalleyregister.com is going to offer reader forums on all state propositions on the November ballot in the coming weeks. Look for these any many more election-based forums leading up to election day.)
a teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:26 PM:
It's also unwise to make it so easy to amend the constitution. "
Raven wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:29 PM:
steph wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:31 PM:
NO!
MIND YOUR BUSINESS!
Help a child or a veteran if you have so much time and concern on your hands! "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:48 PM:
JustMy$.02 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:50 PM:
The reason is, they are trying to make this a State Constitutional Amendment. These become very difficult to 'undo' and this issue doesnt warrent such a 'written in stone' solution.
We do, however, need to take a hard look at where we continue to move that line of acceptable moral behaviour in our society.
I do believe gays deserve the right persue happyness. I just disagree that sepparate but equal isnt a solution in this case. Legal unions are/were the solution.
But hey, thats just my $.02 "
antipc wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:31 PM:
It's time to remind liberal activists judges that it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:57 PM:
Unless you happen to agree with their decision, in which case they are upholding the constitution... "
freeport56 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:03 PM:
I would much rather they call it civil union. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:02 PM:
kevin wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:16 PM:
NapaSnapper wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:17 PM:
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:58 PM:
The institution of marriage should be protected, and should remain exclusively between a man and a woman.
I, too, am disgusted with judicial activism in our courts. "
Raven wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:37 PM:
just because the majority votes for something does not make it constitutional, one of the reasons constitutions were set in place to help protect the rights of the minority from a tyranny of the majority "
pharper wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:07 PM:
...Now why does that sound familiar? Of course, I'm sure you don't agree that blacks and whites should still be "separate but equal..." right? It should also be noted that when such a policy was kept in the United States, there was hardly anything "equal" about it.
NO on this discriminatory, homophobic proposition. "
antipc wrote on Jul 18, 2008 8:19 PM:
The judges are trying to rewrite the definition of marriage not the majority.
Teacher,
The constitution mandates the separation of powers. Since the amendment has been adopted by the voters, judges have no right to overturn it. Their job is to interprete the law. "
Raven wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:30 PM:
They didn't rewrite the definition, they merely clarified who had the right to participate, according the to state constitution. If that is amended....a whole new ball game starts. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:43 PM:
All relationships are ultimately harmed when we focus on condemning others and pandering to our natural tendency for intolerance. I and pretty much everyone I know will vote NO on Prop. 8. Because we all know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that allowing homosexuals to engage in legal commitment is better for society and better for the partners than the alternative -- preventing them, through discrimination, from pursuing happiness honorably. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:50 AM:
They did interpret the law. You just don't like their interpretation. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 19, 2008 12:58 AM:
fmmt47 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:34 AM:
Hear Ye wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:41 AM:
kevin wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:45 AM:
How much more punishment can you Libs deal us?? "
Raven wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:16 AM:
Bauhausfan wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:34 AM:
Why they may get married more than once like those heterosexuals who hold marriage so "sacred". Or they may elope and get married in Reno or Las Vegas. Or they may have a marriage annulment. Or may get a separation and live apart. Or they may have a dysfunctional marriage and have some violence thrown in for good measure.
But they will never be able to have a "real" marriage like us heterosexuals.
Of course I am so frightened by the prospect of gay marriage that I am now starting to question my own marriage.
What is love?
What does it all mean?
Who am I?
Oh, the horror of it all! "
misfit wrote on Jul 19, 2008 2:10 PM:
Natural" then, NOTHING can "Ruin" it! "
Dirty Napkin wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:39 PM:
GetReal! wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:50 AM:
kbf wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:46 AM:
St.Hell.comNative wrote on Jul 20, 2008 12:04 PM:
ladaddy wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:07 PM:
pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2008 3:43 PM:
Secondly, how are homosexuals "pushing" what they do behind "closed doors" on straight people? Are you frequently approached and asked to marry someone of the same gender? Do gay men/women flirt with you and try to force you to have "perverse" sexual relations? Have you ever been ordered to change your sexuality to fit the "norm?" The ONLY thing that's changed here is now another ten per cent of the population in California has been given equal rights. What the "majority" believes is irrelevant--if we'd gone with the majority in the case of abolishing slavery or allowing interracial marriages, we'd still have plantations where black people call white people "master." Another thing to bear in mind is that, according to a news station (I can't remember which; I'll have to look it up), the California majority is changing-- more than half of the population ( a slim margin, but nonetheless) is in favor of gay marriage, a turnaround from the last time a gay marriage initiative was on the ballot. The only reason anyone here is accusing the judges of being "activist judges" is because they don't like the ruling. The court did its job, you just don't like their decision.
And ladaddy, congratulations! You must be very happy. :) "
funnyme wrote on Jul 20, 2008 6:09 PM:
Just to annoy the minority even more (that would be the "I will never be a happy gay" and their supporters).
A few gays I know find the "Gay Marriage" disgusting in context. "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:15 PM:
I remember the previous blog on the gay marriage topic, where I said that now the gays can have all the fun of paying attorneys and going through expensive and brutal divorce proceedings and some lefty ripped me a new one for "being mean", and "what made me think those things would happen to gays?"
Took me about an hour to get up off the floor from laughing so hard. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:42 PM:
Oh, there were a few ancient civilizations that began to glorify homosexuality (Greeks, Romans). Funny thing, those civilizations were destroyed shortly after that. "
misfit wrote on Jul 20, 2008 9:56 PM:
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:41 PM:
To believe that is truly funny because it is so ignorant of the human condition. Maybe you don't think that is funny, but I do. Actually going through it is not at all funny (been there done that, and didn't even get a t-shirt for it - that was taken too). But believing that you won't have to go through it because you are in a gay marriage is warped.
And yes, being a fairly happy person I do enjoy a good laugh. If someone wishes to provide me with a laugh, I will take them up on it. One of the reasons I enjoy reading and posting here is because of the high entertainment value. Anyone who takes this too seriously needs to step back and take a deep breath and find something else to do. We are all just venting and stating what we believe to be the truth. Your truth obviously is different from mine. And from time to time some humor creeps in (visit the Bloggermania thread for bizarre evidence of that).
Yes, in the Socialist New World Order when we are subservient to the UN, humor will be outlawed because people will use it to poke fun at government. So I'm getting mine now, while I still can. "
pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:49 PM:
Wow...clearly, someone has not read a historical text in a while. As I recall, with the Romans, it was the strain of having an empire that stretched so far that its leaders had trouble maintaining it, leading to its crumble.
And I haven't taken ancient history since seventh grade four years ago! "
pharper wrote on Jul 20, 2008 10:51 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 20, 2008 11:11 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:24 AM:
As for every state passing such a law, I believe Arizona attempted too in 2006 and it was defeated. "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:27 AM:
You have to be truthful with history. You can't say just because it is history it is right. Things happened that were not right, and that's how we learn from history.
You can't take a piece of history and turn it out of context, twist it around and make it be whatever you want. That's revisionist history as practiced by lefties who have no problem with destroying reality to prove their point.
Learn from it or be doomed to repeat it. "
Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:02 AM:
MP wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:08 AM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:43 AM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:47 AM:
Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:23 PM:
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:26 PM:
Like most major powers in history, there was not one specific thing that brought Rome down, but a collection of weight of mistakes etc. Kind of like what is bringing us down now. "
Webster9 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:05 PM:
" YES!!!
It's time to remind liberal activists judges that it is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. "
_______________________________
Don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. The justices who voted in favor of gay marriage were 3 REPUBLICANS and 1 Democrat. And, the majority opinion was written by the REPUBLICAN Chief Justice.
The legislature makes rights for the majority.
The judiciary makes rights for the minority. "
tfytmp wrote on Jul 21, 2008 5:15 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:02 PM:
WOW! That statement is so historically inaccurate it boggles the mind.
First off, the Romans did not glorify homosexuality so much as they accepted it. Romans pretty much figured that whatever a Roman citizen did behind closed door s was his business. The Roman empire lasted more than a thousand years and stretched from the borders of Asia to the Atlantic. There were lots of reasons for their eventual collapse, homosexuality is not one of them.
The Greeks did glorify homosexuality, however it was a whole different style than what we have today. More like "experimenting during my college days". The Greek civilization's longevity is a little harder to judge, much of the time there wasn't a Greece, just several city states that had a common language. Alexander the Great was certainly gay (his father wondered if Alexander would ever have heirs). At the height of his power, Greek civilization spread from the Adriatic to the borders of India. When he died, the disintegration of his empire was more the result of his not planning for his own demise (he did die rather young).
JR-read a book or two on the subject... "
John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:21 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:33 PM:
WorksInNapa wrote on Jul 21, 2008 9:18 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 21, 2008 11:30 PM:
I wonder how the state GOP would consider your description of them..
as far as the judges, one could argue that the ninth circuit court of appeals was activist and the most liberal in the land, but the state supreme court....hardly "
tfytmp wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:22 AM:
antipc wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:59 AM:
Thanks for pointing out my ignorance. However being a registered republican hardly qualifies one as a conservative. "
marine1/1 wrote on Jul 22, 2008 10:55 AM:
a-ve wrote on Jul 22, 2008 11:31 AM:
NValleyGirl wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:00 PM:
marine1/1 - Are you sure that you aren't confused on the issue as to what Prop 8 entails?
a-ve - Your logic is confusing at best. So people can still go around and "act" like a married couple but it is different when they are a married couple. Because if Prop 8 is defeated you are going to know the difference between a gay married couple and just two gay people dating? "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:44 PM:
The Constitution should be strictly and narrowly interpreted. Judges must look to the plain meaning of the lanuage in the instrument as well as to the clear, unambiguous intent of the drafters. If a decision cannot be made in accordance with the plain meaning or clear intent doctrines, then judges are flirting with judicial activism.
Further, it is patently unfair and undemocratic for judges to prevert and distort the Constitution by giving it an interpretation that is clearly contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the drafters.
The Constitution should NOT be interpreted to accomodate the whims of activist judges who want to impose their personal views and beliefs on the people of this great country.
YES ON MEASURE 8 "
Raven wrote on Jul 22, 2008 2:27 PM:
and if we hue to what the drafters intended, there wouldn't be a means for prop 8 even be on the ballot in the first place....there was no referendum process in the state constitution..
a constitution is a growing, living document...that changes as the needs of the people it serves change. "
notshocked wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:00 PM:
Survivor benefits. Equal treatment.
NV Moderator... thank you for cleaning out the remarks that are hateful and hurtful. I appreciate, now, that you didn't publish my rebuttal once I noticed you removed the offending entry. "
bchiloquin wrote on Jul 22, 2008 7:12 PM:
barefoot wrote on Jul 22, 2008 9:03 PM:
tfytmp wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:56 AM:
Indigo99 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:14 AM:
For everyone arguing that 'gays marrying ruins the institution of marriage' here's another news-flash; there is no institution. Unless you are referring to a religion which needs to promote pro-creation to continue whatever doctrine is being taught. Religions are institutions. They need your revenue too.
This case is much much less about honor, dignity, equality and much more about control, power and where the money is going. The state should have stayed out of it? The state IS it. "
steph wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:10 AM:
y2kcbr wrote on Jul 23, 2008 10:53 AM:
Not to get into symantecs (sp?), but all the holy rollers that are saying it is against the Bible (I'm Catholic) have seen divorce. Isn't that against Christianity?
Let people marry who they want. Who cares. "
napadad wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:46 PM:
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:44 PM:
Perhaps you should focus on Article 2 Sections 8 - 10 of the California constitution which delineates rights with regard to referendum and initiative powers.
I agree with you that the Constitution is "a growing, living document that changes as the needs of the people it serves changes." The Constitution can be "changed" by being amended through a process that ensures changes are done with thoughtful deliberation, public debate, and supermajority approval. It is not the role of judges to legislate from the bench and create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own view of what society needs.
Yes on Measure 8! "
Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 2:01 PM:
It is the job of judges to interpret the constitution. By your standard interracial marriage would still be banned in this state. "
Dwayne wrote on Jul 23, 2008 4:40 PM:
I feel the same revulsion when I'm near anyone who hasn't bathed for a long time. Offensive is simply offensive. Enough of the gay agenda in our faces already.
We need to put this to bed and be done with it. You can't marry your Mother or your brother, or your dog or any farm animal, nor anyone of the same sex. All of those are an insult to the sense of public morality. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:18 PM:
Judges must apply the law to the specific facts of a case. That is their constitutionally prescribed power. So, yes, in that sense it is the judges duty to "interpret." However, the Constitution did not give judges the power to create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, etc. See previous comments.
When a court ruled that "evolving constitutional standards" MANDATES a right to same-sex marriage, contravening 200 years of state law and hundreds of years of tradition, the court was practicing the judicial activism and was acting outside the scope of its constitutionally prescribed powers. For your reference see Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)
Interracial marriage is completely different. The Court reasoned within its constitutionally prescribed powers. In making its decision, it relied on the plain meaning and intent doctrines to interpret the law prohibiting interracial marriage as violating the 14th Amend. (Per the standard I am advocating) The Court had made a reasonable interpretation based on the facts and the law. It did not attempt to confer a new right and
re-define marriage as in the case of same-sex marriage. "
Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:23 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:48 PM:
its okay to make some interpretations but not others? what about a right to privacy? is there one...nothing in it in the federal constitution but clearly stated in the state document
and the state justices were quite clear as to what the reasoning was when they rendered the decision in may...Massachusetts law has no bearing when applied to the California state constitution "
Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 5:50 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:01 PM:
That is not the same thing as creating a new right. It's the same argument as the one for inter racial marriage.
Oh and an aside: The right wing seems awfully preoccupied with beastiality. What's that about? "
Dwayne wrote on Jul 23, 2008 6:24 PM:
Knowing right from wrong is the key..... "
Dwayne wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:04 PM:
No it's not. Interracial marriage is a racial issue, and homosexuality is a moral issue.
Where do you folks learn right from wrong, anyway? People with an agenda seem to disregard the difference between right and wrong, as if it does not exist. Kinda like a bank robber who thought it was okay because he needed money. What kind of thinking is that...??? Justifying the means to an end because it sounds good?
It seems that principles in this country are going down the drain. "
Webster9 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:39 PM:
It's funny how Radical Right Wing Conservative Republicans always drag out the tired "activist judges," and "legislating-from-the-bench" lines whenever (and ONLY when) the justices do not agree with their opinion. "
Raven wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:01 PM:
And as for where I learned my morals, where did I learn right from wrong? Mine was in my church, where it was the golden rule....treat others as you would expect to be treated.
Gay and Lesbian people are not asking for any special treatment, they are simply asking to be treated as we treat everyone else....sounds a lot like treating them according to the golden rule in my book "
a teacher wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:02 PM:
The people who would be against inter racial marriage would also say that it's a moral issue. "
barefoot wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:43 PM:
barefoot wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:47 PM:
dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:59 PM:
pharper wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:24 AM:
Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:59 AM:
We are talking about allowing two legal adults to commit themselves to each other. "
Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:02 AM:
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:47 PM:
The intent of the drafters of the CA Constitution was clear. It was manifested in the plain meaning of the language in document itself which provided a means for accomplishing a constitutional amendment to effectuate a change to the CA Constitution, i.e. adding the referendum process. A judge did not "interpret" the right to initiate a referendum by distorting a provision of the CA Constitution into something it was clearly not. (judicial activism) Rather, the right was properly established through the constitutional amendment process.
Often times, the court will use case law from other jurisdictions to decide an issue. This is called persuasive authority, and although it is not binding, it aids the court in its analysis. When there is very little controlling case law or when the case is a case of first impression, then persuasive authority becomes an important judicial tool. The Mass. case to which I referred to above was referenced in the majority and dissenting opinions of the CA Supreme Court decision that we are currently discussing in this forum. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:12 PM:
I respectfully disagree. You stated that
"The California Supreme Court's decision ruled that it would be unconstitutional to deny a marriage certificate based on the same sex status of the couple."
That is not quite accurate. The CA Supreme Court held that the language in section 300 of the CA Family Code limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marraige available both to opposite sex and same sex couples. Futher, the Court held that section 308.5 of the CA Family Code
(Prop 22) can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the previous conclusion and that the provision cannot stand.
With regard to your interracial marriage argument, consider the following which was stated by Justice Baxter of the CA Supreme Court in his dissent.
"The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood into something quite new. They could accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. That change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate." "
Paddy wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:46 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 24, 2008 4:57 PM:
The only time I hear people say polls are meaningless are when they are on the losing end. It's just like those activist judges... "
John Richards wrote on Jul 24, 2008 5:48 PM:
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:51 PM:
Please offer your analysis and insight with specific references as well as your rationale supported by the facts. That would be far more productive than regurgitating the trite platitudes of bitter left-wing liberals who cling to their close-mindedness and assume the predictable defensive posture.
The Court of Appeal in a 2 to 1 decision agreed with my position. Moreover, Justices Baxter, Chin, and Corrigan of the CA Supreme Court acknowledge that the majority was acting beyond its constitutionally prescribed powers.
Justice Corrigan stated, "The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision. It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined. It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists."
Justice Baxter stated, "Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage - an understanding recently confirmed by initiative law - is no longer valid.... The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and in doing so, oversteps its authority." Justice Chin concurred. "
Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:34 PM:
No one has answered the key question yet...how does homosexual threaten, endanger, harm marriage in any way?
How does Lisa and Ellen or Jerry and Joe becoming a married couple threaten your marriage? Try and give us a new answer instead of falling back upon Biblical text or tired misdirection about pedophelia (sp?) or bestiality. because in the threads so far I have yet to hear any concrete cause for harm.... anything that helps couple make a long-term commitment to each other is a positive for society. "
Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:35 PM:
Webster9 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 8:56 PM:
_______________________________
You are mistaken. The Republican Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, who wrote the decision to allow gay marriage, relied chiefly on the 1948 California case concerning interracial marriage, citing that they involved the exact same kind of discrimination.
BTW, morality is a choice.
Race and homosexuality are not. "
barefoot wrote on Jul 24, 2008 9:29 PM:
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:18 PM:
No one is "screaming and hollering." I am simply pointing out the injustice. Perhaps others will see the injustice and vote YES on Measure 8 to send a clear message to the Court that it is the people's will (as approved in Prop 22) that will ultimately prevail. Personally, I am opposed to same-sex marriage for moral reasons.
There is a flaw in your reasoning. The mere fact the majority is the "majority" does not automatically make it right and does not change the fact that it violated the separation of powers. Take for instance the U.S. Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision in which the activist majority overturned the anti-slavery portions of the Missouri Compromise and affirmed that slaves were indeed "property."
My examples of the Baxter and Corrigan opinions served the following purpose: to support my contention that this decision was handed down by a majority of activist judges. In Baxter's opinion, it states, "the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration."
If we adopted your view of not speaking out for injustices because we should just "get used to it," then it really would be doing a disservice to our country and to our fellow Americans. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:51 PM:
The federal law defines marriage for purposes of federal law as "only a legal union between 1 man and 1 woman." See 1 USC section 7. There is now the issue of how to distinguish same sex married couples from heterosexual married couples for purposes of administering federal benefits/law since only heterosexual married couples are recognized as "married" under federal law. If we kept same-sex couples distinct from heterosexual marriage, i.e. civil unions, then there would not be this problem/burden.
Why is it necessary to name and privilege same-sex unions in exactly the same way traditional marriages are supported? The current CA statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded to couples under CA law.
We should respect everyone's freedom to make lifestyle choices, but draw the line at re-defining marriage for the rest of society. "
Raven wrote on Jul 24, 2008 11:34 PM:
At no point did I ever say not to speak out against injustice, that is why I am voting against Prop 8, to prevent an injustice from being done. "
opiniagirl wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:05 AM:
Thanks for the detailed accurate accounting of the judicial process in this case. Don't be discouraged by those who "just can't get it", you'll find a lot of that here. You'll find yourself in a semantics game with no drive other than to discredit the truth you have outlined. Just wait until you misspell a word, they’ll pounce.
Morality set aside (difficult I know), it is dangerous when judges "interpret" or in this case "create" amendments that are in DIRECT CONFLICT with the wishes of the American people, who already voted on this issue. That's when democracy dies and dictatorships are created. When the Mayor of San Fran issued marriage certificates, he BROKE THE LAW that he was elected to enforce. He should have been criminally charged. Why is everyone OK with that? From any standpoint, what he did was illegal, and what these Judges did is not what the American People want - I can't believe that this doesn't scare people!
What's next - how we raise our kids, how we keep our homes, gun elimination, what we say, what we read...this pendulum swings both ways...this puts all of our rights up for the same "interpretation" and eliminates the voice of the people.
How can that EVER be something that is OK, even if you agree that the law should change; don't you think that we owe it to our fellow citizens to honor the democracy of this country by upholding the decision that has already been made. Dictatorships are NEVER ok. Keep this door SHUT!
I'll be voting NO on this prop - if only to send the message that the people of this country are not stupid or willing to be manipulated or tricked by words like "interpretation". "
opiniagirl wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:07 AM:
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:46 AM:
Saying civil unions give virtual all the same benefits as is like saying segregated schools gave virtual all the same benefits....the courts found that separate was never equal, and by denying homosexuals the same rights, and yes marriage is a right, you arer saying they are not equal. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:14 PM:
You will note that the California Constitution mentions marriage in two places, both of which involve property. At no point is the gender of the parties in a marriage addressed.
Article 1, section 7 addresses equal protection (particularly school integration). It states:
"b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked."
That, I believe is the crux of the matter. The judges ruled that you can not grant heterosexuals the right to marry and NOT also grant homosexuals the right to marry. The judges did not create a right, they acknowledged Article 1, section 7 of the state constitution.
Prop. 8 seeks to change the constitution to define what a marriage is, a dangerous precedent, in my opinion. The fact that the constitution of the state can be so easily amended is troubling. Majorities matter since only 50%+1 is needed. It concerns me that a small portion of voters could amend the constitution. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:09 PM:
Discrimination based on gender is often appropriate, as we see it with respect to such things as public restrooms, and in laws that define public nudity. "
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 1:20 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:09 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 3:24 PM:
pharper wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:04 PM:
It is true that, at one point, the majority of Californians did not agree with the judges. That, however has changed. The majority changes; it's the nature of things, and while once California may have voted yes on this prop, Californians, it seems, won't do it again. It IS a judge's job to interpret the law. Not liking it because of your own personal beliefs does not make them activist judges. The majority has changed, now, too, so while several years ago these judges may have been going against the wishes of the people (had this ruling been made then), they aren't now, because the majority supports gay marriage.
Look at the polls: all the recent ones show a 50% or more majority is against this proposition (I think the one in the Chronicle—or the Register, can’t remember—said it was 52%?). You may not like it, but the judges didn't go against the majority. It apparently IS what the American public wants--or should want: equal rights for all, like our Constitution promises. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:10 PM:
Secondly, there are practical legal differences between marriage and civil unions. For one thing the state constitution specifically addresses marriage in relation to common property and taxes. Then there are differences in how domestic partnership is handled in hospitals, insurance, survivor benefits. Policies in some areas are changing to accommodate civil unions, but then I refer you back to my first point.
The court decision did not create a new right. They said that you can't deny marriage to gay couple based on the state's constitution. "
hawkins707 wrote on Jul 25, 2008 4:56 PM:
Vote YES
Vote YES
Vote YES
Vote YES
I'm glad to see so many supporters of prop 8. Napa scares me sometimes, we all can agree on this and that's terrific. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:29 PM:
Thank you for your support. I agree with your sentiments on the subject, especially with regard to San Francisco's criminal mayor. It is great to see that people like you understand the dangerous implications and ramifications of judicial activism in our democracy.
Teacher,
I commend you for responding and for offering a reference in support of your position. Nevertheless, it is necessary to read the opinions in order to have a complete understanding.
You stated, "...the California Constitution mentions marriage in two places, both of which involve property. At no point is the gender of the parties in a marriage addressed."
While that is correct, it is also true that the CA Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a "right to marry."
If we employ your method of reasoning, then there is no "right to marry" because at no point is the "right to marry" addressed in the CA Constitution.
To the contrary, case law has established that the right to marry is protected by the CA Constitution via the express right of privacy. Likewise, case law and CA statutes have made it abundantly clear that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Even the majority acknowledges this point in its opinion. It states, " From the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman."
The majority even provided historical context when it acknowledged that Article XI, section 14 of the CA Constitution of 1849 provided explicit constitutional protection for a "WIFE'S separate property." "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 25, 2008 5:40 PM:
As far as "gender" is concerned, that was NOT even the basis for the majority's opinion. In fact, they rejected the notion that CA law discriminated against
same-sex couples based on gender or sex. The majority stated, "...we
do NOT agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of a suspect characteristic of sex or gender. So your point about "gender" not being addressed in the CA Constitution is inconsequential in the majority's view. This is precisely why it is important to read the opinion. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:18 PM:
Let's address your "Equal Protection" contentions.
First, just because classes of people are treated disparately or unequally does not necessitate the conclusion that their unequal treatment, under the law, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
How were homosexuals discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference under the marriage statutes? The marriage statutes are facially neutral on the subject of sexual orientation. As CA Supreme Court Justices Baxter and Chin stated, the statutes allow "all persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, to enter into the relationship called marriage, and they do not, by their terms, prohibit any two persons from marrying each other on the ground that one or both of the partners is gay."
This case was an issue of first impression in California. In such instances a Court should rely on the precedents and case law of the U.S. Supreme Court as well as other states which have considered the issue. This activist court ignored the doctrine of stare decisis, upon which our judicial system is based, and ruled precisely the OPPOSITE way. Also, they applied the incorrect standard when determining the constitutionality of the CA statutes. "
Dwayne wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:25 PM:
I won't marry her though, because I wouldn't want anyone to think she's perverted. That would be wrong, wouldn't it.
I can leave my entire estate to her if I wish.
Pretty sick, eh...???...!!! Same thing..... "
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:43 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:45 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:10 PM:
You ain't gettin' it...!!! Vote YES...!!! (again)
California's already the laughing stock of the planet... "
savant wrote on Jul 25, 2008 7:59 PM:
"The incorrect standard is always the one seen applied by the losers in a decision." Nice one, but just because you are the loser in a decision doesn't mean you are wrong.
I'd just give it up Raven, she is making you look bad. "
pharper wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:24 PM:
Using bestiality as example, by the way, is just ignorant. You're comparing human beings to animals. That's what's disgusting, not gay marriage. "
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:37 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:39 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:51 PM:
My understanding is that the majority decided the case based on the rights that California already extends towards same sex couples. They reasoned that since civil unions amount to a marriage in everything but name, a law prohibiting marriage based on same sex status was a violation of the constitution (article 1, section 7). I believe that is the same argument in Massachusetts. I don't see how that amounts to judicial activism.
Five reasonable people can hear the same facts and reach different opinions. That is all this amounts to. "
Dwayne wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:19 PM:
" a question for all you yes on prop 8 supporters, will you accept a no vote as a final word by the voters of this state on the subject? "
Did you accept the OJ Simpson verdict, even though you knew it was wrong...???
There are principles in life, and contrived excuses don't change the character of those principles. "
Raven wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:46 PM:
and how is accepting the results of the election a contrived excuse? "
barefoot wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:10 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:34 PM:
Probably little effect, the actual number of same sex marriages is pretty small compared to heterosexual marriage, so regardless of the average success of the marriages. Same with domestic abuse.
"Who gets custody of any children born during said "marriage"?"
In CA, courts do their best to establish 50/50 custody. I would imagine it would be the same for same sex marriages. "
Webster9 wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:46 PM:
Your protest seems to indicate your disgust with homosexuality itself more than any concrete evidence that gay marriage would take anything away from straight marriages.
Our Mayor Gavin Newsom is not a criminal, simply because he does not share your brand of hatred. And, as you have seen, our Supreme Court justices proved him correct.
Perhaps you have heard that Mayor Newsom, in all likelihood, will be our next Governor.
BTW, the polls in July showed the exact same results as they did back in May. So, it would seem that the voters' minds have been made up: 51% are in favor of gay marriage, and 42% are against it, with only 7% undecided.
Trust me. You'll get used to it. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:21 AM:
"If you're against gay marriage...then DONT have one"...nuff said. "
pharper wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:50 AM:
cab e-girl wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:48 AM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:52 AM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 11:58 AM:
winemd wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:01 PM:
ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 12:40 PM:
Thats as simple as it gets.. "
Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:19 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:31 PM:
Oh, by the way, those in favor of Prop 8 have no interest in legislating what goes on in the bedroom, so you can stuff that red herring. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:43 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:05 PM:
and I am sure the yes on Prop 8 people are going to burn...saw a story that the ballot description will describe the prop as taking away a right currently enjoyed some Californians. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:29 PM:
Why isn't our Supreme Court incensed about *that* discrimination?
My point is that gender differences *do* matter. "
winemd wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:39 PM:
Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:41 PM:
The best reason is that by voting against you are working to prevent rights being stripped away from Californians who have committed no crime. "
Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 6:42 PM:
savenapa wrote on Jul 26, 2008 7:06 PM:
It's always entertaining to see people come in spitting venom about this topic. The people that pin the hate label on everyone are usually the ones that spew the most poison. "
Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 8:56 PM:
still haven't heard anyone say they would abide by a vote where prop 8 was defeated. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:02 PM:
Gavin Newsom is notorious for willfully and knowingly disregarding the law to suit his own agenda. He acts as if he is above the law. In fact, Newsom and the city of S.F. may get sued in the very near future for breaking federal immigration laws. Even the most liberal of S.F. can agree that S.F. should not harbor or give sanctuary to CRIMINAL illegal immigrants.
In 2004, the CA Supreme Court concluded in Lockyer v. City and County of S.F. that the S.F. public officials, most notably Gavin Newsom, acted UNLAWFULLY by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That is a fact. With regard to the CA Supreme Court’s most recent decision, the Court did not decide whether it believes as a matter of public policy that the officially recognized relation of a same-sex couple SHOULD be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership.
I seriously DOUBT that Newsom will become Governor of CA, especially with his record of moral indecency and criminal behavior.
Now what’s all this talk about a “brand of hatred?” To accuse me, or at the very least, strongly imply, that I “hate” homosexuals, is inaccurate. Just because I believe in the traditional, age-old, universal definition of marriage, does not compel the conclusion that I harbor hatred for homosexuals. I do not subscribe to any “brand of hate.” Rather, I subscribe to the truth, which is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:04 PM:
You consistently refer to an unscientific poll to bolster your support of same-sex marriage. I have a few questions… Who administered the poll? What is the margin of error? What is the confidence level? What was the method of sampling? How large was the sample? Did the pollsters accurately represent the entire state?
Interestingly enough, there was a statewide poll conducted (the Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll) which showed different results: 54% of registered voters said they would SUPPORT the initiative that would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. These pollsters triple-checked their numbers and said that everything in this poll was consistent internally. They telephoned 1,052 registered voters between May 17, 2008 and May 26, 2008 and the margin of error was + or – 3.2%.
Another point worthy of noting is that the support for Proposition 22 was much stronger on election day than was shown in the polls taken in the weeks and months prior to the election. Just remember, people might say one thing to a pollster and then vote entirely differently when they are alone in the voting booth. "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:08 PM:
The fact is that NONE of the majority's cited decisions hold, or remotely suggest, that any right to marry recognized by the Constitution extends beyond the traditional definition of marriage to include "same-sex marriage."
Civil marriage is an institution historically defined as the legal union of a man and woman, and the homosexuals could not succeed except by convincing the Court to INSERT in our Constitution an ALTERED AND EXPANDED DEFINITION of marriage - one that includes same-sex partnerships for the first time. The majority took it upon themselves to re-define marriage, ignore the doctrine of stare decisis, violate the separation of powers provision, create a new right, and substitute their personal societal views for that of the people.
It is far more disconcerting that 4 justices can overrule the will of the people (61.4%) without any proper constitutional basis, than for a simple majority of CA voters (50% +1) to amend the constitution to reflect the will of the people and overrule the 4 activist justices. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:26 PM:
John you said" Raven, in spite of your comment to the contrary, I don't see women routinely walking topless down Main Street, not in any city or in any state.".
I'd LOVE to see certain females walk down Main Street topless, Conversely I'd hate to see certain "gentleman wearing speedos down the same street.
Should we pass a law that says ONLY really "eye pleasing persons should be allowed the privilege? Then isn't it then a matter of interpretation?
John, there was a woman from Berkley who used to ride her bike wearing pasties and have you ever been to the Folsom Street Fair..I'm sure although I had a GREAT time it may give your sensibilities permanent, irrevocable damage. The Bike lady went to Oregon and she STILL wears her pasties..
2.Take a good honest look at American Law when it came to sex, EVERYTHING and ANYTHING EXCEPT for the "Missionary" Position was deemed immoral and Illegal at one time or the other. You couldn't even "shack up".
3.Here's a red herring for you...at least 40 years ago, my marriage would be considered Illegal and would most likely have me lynched.
4.Do you have ANY Idea what the gay community has contributed to society, culture and the world at large? How could you NOT allow them ALL the same protections we as "straights" have?
Dwayne brought up an Interesting point..
Did you accept the OJ Simpson verdict, even though you knew it was wrong...???"...Actually Dwayne LIKE the Prop 8 mess, the verdict, ticked off folks, they found a way around that. First they bled him dry in Civil Court, he's NOW sweating another case . SOS different case. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:43 PM:
Bill Cosby once stated childbirth for women was akin to taking your bottom Lip and pulling it over your head.. Do you REALLY care to impose PAIN on someone who wants and deserves to be treated equally under the color of law?
You also stated..Oh, by the way, those in favor of Prop 8 have no interest in legislating what goes on in the bedroom, so you can stuff that red herring. "
Yes another red herring for you..Brown vs Board of education..the separate but equal stance in that case was shown to NOT only be subject to systematic abuses, but was a failed policy. I'd like to think, no believe.. this country learns from its mistakes..
Miss Napa Valley, YOUR statement.." This is not a matter of equal rights, but rather a matter of EXTRA rights. " Can you hear the buzzzer? WRONGGGGGGG!!
Actually it was that SAME type of thinking that has proven in the past to be legally, ethically and morally wrong!
I believe teacher said it best... Democracy can be messy....My point?...get over it..These people will NOT FORCE you to become gay..they MAY however serve you foods, books, music, philosophy , paint,teach you law, police your streets, make your laws,fix your cars and on and on and on. The ONLY major difference between you and them, would be sexual preferences.
Why and how can you decide that is ENOUGH to deny them ALL the SAME things we as straights take for granted? "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:44 PM:
Thank you for stating your understanding of the Court’s reasoning in reaching its decision. Here is the reason why their decision violated Article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause states that “the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial,” and that “persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others” except as the Constitution specifically provides.
Only the People can amend the Constitution. The Legislature has no unilateral power to do so (Cal. Const. art. XVIII.) Notwithstanding this, the effect of the majority’s reasoning is that the Legislature can accomplish such amendment indirectly, whether it intends to do so or not, by reflecting current community attitudes in the laws it enacts.
Additionally, the majority has given the Legislature, indirectly, a power it does not otherwise possess to thwart the People’s express legislative will. Under Article II, Section 10, subdivision (c) of the CA Constitution, the Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.
Section 308.5 of the CA Family Code (Prop 22 initiative) limits marriage in CA to a man and a woman. It contains no provision allowing the Legislature to amend or repeal it without the voters’ approval. Yet, the majority allows the Legislature, through its decision, to circumvent this and consequently, violate Art. II, Section 10, sub. (c). "
MissNapaValley wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:48 PM:
In simple terms, the majority used statutory law to establish a constitutional right, which can only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. As the dissenting Justices correctly concur, the majority’s decision was unconstitutional.
Justices Baxter stated, and Justice Chin concurred, that the majority’s
“pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power.” I emphasize the word “SERIOUSLY.” If ever there were a case of judicial activism and a court acting outside its constitutionally prescribed powers, this case would be a shining example. "
Raven wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:54 PM:
And speaking of polls, the field poll released on the 18 shows a solid 51 percent opposed to Prop 8. Thsi is the second poll to show a majority of people opposed to it. "
ADark1 wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:55 PM:
" Webbie- What do you think of Mr. Newsom making SF a sanctuary city? Wonder what you think of the felon the was let out of jail, not deported and murdered a man and his two sons in a road rage incident under Mr. Newsoms policies? Yeah he's a peach. "
Hmmmmm, sounds like sounds like...Hold it Hold it...YUP! Willie Horton Revisited! Come on cab e you CAN'T REALLY hold him responsible for that...Kinda like saying well nm..I do believe you get the point or you should.
Now back to you MISS Napa Valley..you stated in part.."It is far more disconcerting that 4 justices can overrule the will of the people (61.4%) without any proper constitutional basis, than for a simple majority of CA voters (50% +1) to amend the constitution to reflect the will of the people and overrule the 4 activist justices. "
To me what is REALLY disconcerting is that unless the judiciary RULES the way YOU and others want..then they are considered activist justices"
If you take an honest look at it..It's the epitome of hypocrisy. I promise, NONE of you will have to wear a tinfoil hat to keep the gay rays from making you then become gay should the voters do the RIGHT thing and allow them to have ALL the JOYS, SORROWS, and freedoms straight people have and take for granted. We as people need to PROGRESS