Good As You

I cannot believe the superpowers gay marriage has been endowed with, not only can it destroy existing families, prevent new ones from forming, it can also erode the love in other peoples marriages.

But the best bit, you can remove all that is good and sacred in the world. By getting married.

Seriously, these people need to grow up, two people saying "I do" will not destroy civilisation, even if it were against the will of God.

But if anyone feels particularly omnipotent after marrying, could you erase PlB and RT from existence, because the last thing this very fragile world needs is hatemongers.

Also once again bisexuals have been missed off, I'm not sure they get ungodly superpowers when they marry the same sex, shame, I really wanted to get down to some smiting.

Corvidae - what is PIB and RT?

I know. I'm probably being dumb, but what is it?

Like Star Trek's Norman said,

Only humans can explain."

db

Wait a minute! I thought that this already happened in Massachusetts?

Wasn’t marriage already destroyed . . . Once?

How can you destroy marriage twice!!! UNLESS . . . maybe it wasn’t destroyed the first time! AH, that’s it, Randy Thomasson is LYING???

So what would happen if in November the ballot initiative restricting marriage to a man and woman only passes? would all the legel same-sex marriages be made illegal (again)? Can something that has already been declared unconstitutional be then added to the constitution thus making my head hurt from the circular reasoning...

Argh!

Todd, Prop 22 was a Ballot Initiative, and wasn't a Constitutional Amendment. An Initiative can be determined to be Unconstitutional if it violates the Constitution – just like any law can be. But if the Constitution is amended, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution – so then it cannot be determined to be Unconstitutional.

In California you need more signatures to qualify an Amendment for the ballot than you do for an Initiative. But in both cases you need a majority (over 50%) of the vote pass it into law. If the Amendment passes, then I would assume that on that date that it becomes law that any same-sex marriages would be nullified.

My parents are going to be pretty upset to learn that "marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional."

If they aren't shocked by the news of their sudden and unceremonious annulment, they're sure to choke on all of the bullshit.

I've been wondering if there has ever been a case where a state supreme court has been able to nullify a narrow constitutional amendment on the grounds that it conflicted with broader provisions of the constitution. I know that the US Supreme Court has nullified specific amendments to a state constitution - most notably affecting gay people in Romer v. Evans in 1996 which overturned a draconian Colorado amendment.

"Gays, you destroy the 'sacred' part of society, lesbians, you take the 'goodness'"

I think my talents lend themselves more to destroying 'goodness' than the 'sacred'. Could I work with the lesbians this time? Of course, if it involves power tools, I wouldn't be much help.

Bisexuals are the secret double agents.

Bi.

James or Jane Bi.

That is a good point Richard; the US Supreme Court (and US Constitution) certainly trump all state constitutions and all state and federal laws. So the US Supreme Court can, and has, overturned provisions of state constitutions.

State Supreme Courts are limited to upholding the constitution of that particular state - and an amendment, though, is a part of the state’s constitution so the court would necessarily need to obey it. The only recourse would be to the US Supreme Court.

Other constitutional amendments, on the other hand, can certainly repeal previously ratified amendments – like the repeal of prohibition. In California, it certainly would be possible to repeal an amendment that bans gay-marriage by utilizing the same amendment procedure.

Randy Thomasson, from lily-white flight, home-schooling Temecula, while critizing 'Rebellious' San Francisco, totally left out the point that the CA Supreme Court is dominated by Republicans - Chief Justice George being one of them.

I don't understand how it is legal or constitutional (or whatever the correct term is) for the mojority of a society to exert its will over a minority of that society when it comes to the freedom and right to the pursuit of happiness. I thought the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights. These are the situations when it is the court's duty to step in and make things right as the judges did in CA. Please help me understand how the impending marriage ban can even be up for a vote and how it was up up for vote in all the other states that have done this. Issues of personal civil rights for a minority group should not be in the hands of the majority; it just isn't right!!

Jason, the majority always rules in a democracy. The majority is, however, limited in the fact that they must obey the Constitution.

Prop 22 was didn't obey the constitution. The recourse of those who want us to be relegated back to second-class citizens is to change the constitution so that is does support their xenophobia.

That is what will happen if this Amendment passes. Amendments don't have to obey the constitution, they change the constitution.

And, Prop 22 wasn't an amendment, it was a ballot initiative, so it became law but didn't change the constitution.

Here is an answer to my previous question (sort of):

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9292697?source=most_viewed

"It was 1964. Conservative groups across California, angered by a new law aimed at discriminatory housing practices, mobilized to wipe the law off the books by amending the state constitution.

The initiative was a hit at the ballot box. Two-thirds of the state's voters approved the change in the constitution. But the new law didn't stick - both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down, finding that it violated federal equal protection rights."