Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: timfogarty on May 20, 2009, 05:13:03 PM
-
the California Supreme Court has until June 3 to release their ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8. there was some evidence that it was going to happen tomorrow. until someone in the SF Mayor's office realized that tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the Dan White riots, which were set off when Dan White was given the most lenient sentence possible for the murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. so they asked the court to postpone their ruling.
-
I thought the whole point of a constitutional amendment was that it became an axiom upon which the law was based. How can a constitutional amendment be "unconstitutional"?
-
it was a proposition, not an amendment
to amend the California Constitution, it must pass both the state assembly and senate, then be approved by the 2/3rds of the voters. Prop 8 did neither of those things.
-
Still fighting this Tim?
-
Proposition 8 was most definitely did amend the California state Constitution. I know that wikipedia is not the most accurate source but it says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8)
Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008, general election. It changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases. The measure added a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."[1][2][3] California's State Constitution put the measure into immediate effect on November 5, the day after the election.[4] The proposition did not affect the existing domestic partnerships in California.[5]
-
Proposition Eight sounds like Preparation H...almost relevant too in a way.
-
Proposition 8 was most definitely did amend the California state Constitution.
Marriage became legal last summer because the California Supreme Court overruled Prop 22. They can do the same with Prop 8 if they feel it violates other parts of the Constitution. To truly amend the constitution, it must pass both houses of the legislature and then be approved by a super majority of the voters.
-
Still fighting this Tim?
we're up to 6 states now, much faster pace than what happened with miscegenation laws
-
Marriage became legal last summer because the California Supreme Court overruled Prop 22. They can do the same with Prop 8 if they feel it violates other parts of the Constitution. To truly amend the constitution, it must pass both houses of the legislature and then be approved by a super majority of the voters.
From what I've read, all it take is a simple majority. Of all the times an amendment has been brought before the CA court, only twice has it been overturned.
If Prop. 8 is ruled as a constitutional revision, it must pass 67% of the Legislature and 51% of the electorate.
we're up to 6 states now, much faster pace than what happened with miscegenation laws
I thought it was five, and with Maine, there's still the matter of the "People's Veto". Maine can veto the gay "marriage" law if they get 56,000 certified signatures of registered voters in before mid-September. Then, a simple majority vote override the governor's bill.
As I've stated elsewhere, when gay "marriage" has its success is in states where people can't amend their constitutions directly, without going through a left-leaning Legislature or Senate.
-
::)
-
From what I've read, all it take is a simple majority. Of all the times an amendment has been brought before the CA court, only twice has it been overturned.
If Prop. 8 is ruled as a constitutional revision, it must pass 67% of the Legislature and 51% of the electorate.
you're right. I was using the term amendment when I should have been using revision
I thought it was five, and with Maine, there's still the matter of the "People's Veto".
again, you're right. NH is so close, with a bill on the governor's desk, but he's asking for a change in the wording. NY is pretty close too.
I'm still upset about Adam Lambert.
-
Tim.
Y'all lost.
Get over it.
-
Why do gays make such a big deal about the marriage thing? I am somewhat okay with giving them equal benefits, but there is one thing holding me back. If we give gays equal fiscal benefits, then who are we to deny normal couples the same benefits as married couples?
-
If we give gays equal fiscal benefits, then who are we to deny normal couples the same benefits as married couples?
marriage is a contract between the state and two people: you agree to be responsible for each other and we'll give you some benefits. unmarried straight couples have the choice whether to enter into that agreement or not, so they're not being denied anything.
-
State high court to rule Tuesday on Prop. 8
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/22/BAE017PFC8.DTL&tsp=1